Oregon Statute Does Not Reverse Preempt Federal Arbitration Act
Post 5208
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/federal-arbitration-provision-applied-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-9kjmc and at https:/zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200.
Litigation Over Costs to Clean Superfund Site Forced to Arbitration
Federal Arbitration Provision Applied
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/federal-arbitration-provision-applied-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-9kjmc and at https:/zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200.
Oregon Statute Does Not Reverse Preempt Federal Arbitration Act
Post 5208
Litigation Over Costs to Clean Superfund Site Forced to Arbitration
In Pacificorp et al v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company, et al, No. 3:25-cv-00163-AB, United States District Court, D. Oregon (October 7, 2025) Plaintiff PacifiCorp sued its excess liability insurers, for failing to indemnify costs related to the Portland Harbor Superfund Site only to have the suit stayed and arbitration compelled. This case tried to change the ruling.
Arbitration Provision:
The Court interpreted the arbitration provisions in the insurance policies and concluded that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applies. Plaintiff argued that the FAA is reverse preempted by Oregon law.
Court’s Decision:
The Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification of the Court’s Opinion & Order Compelling Arbitration and Staying Proceedings. The Court found that the FAA is not reverse preempted.
Legal Standards and Analysis:
The Court applied Oregon law to interpret the arbitration provision, concluding that the term “may” permits either party to compel arbitration.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff argued that the Court’s application of the FAA to interpret the Arbitration Provision superseded or displaced Oregon law, thereby triggering reverse preemption under the McCarran-Ferguson Act (“MFA”).
Under 15 U.S.C. § 1012(b), this is known as reverse preemption.
The Court concluded that application of the FAA to the Arbitration Provision did not invalidate, impair, or supersede the OECAA because the FAA does not directly conflict or interfere with the purpose of the OECAA.
Because no provision of the OECAA “explicitly prohibits or regulates the validity of arbitration provisions in insurance policies ….”
Plaintiff argued the opposite. Plaintiff’s argument was flawed.
The Court did not commit clear error in holding that the FAA applies to the Arbitration Provision.
CONCLUSION
The Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification of the Court’s Opinion & Order Compelling Arbitration and Staying Proceedings.
ZALMA OPINION
Although Oregon law applied it did not exempt or defeat the requirements of the Federal Arbitration Act applied. The litigation is properly stopped and the parties are ordered to arbitration in accordance with the policy language and the language of the Federal Arbitration Act.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster
A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387
Posted on July 6, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster
A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387
In Tami Duvall v. State Of Indiana, No. 1:25-cv-01239-SEB-TAB, United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division (July 1, 2026) Indiana prisoner Tami Duvall filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging her 2011 Indiana convictions for murder, insurance fraud, and obstruction of justice.
Law:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs amendment of pleadings, allowing amendment as of course within specified time limits and otherwise permitting amendment with leave of court when justice so requires.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits the Court to strike redundant matter. Rule 5 of the Rules ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
