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Plaintiff argued that the Court’s application of the FAA to interpret the Arbitration Provision superseded or displaced Oregon law, thereby triggering reverse preemption under the McCarran-Ferguson Act (“MFA”).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.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Payment of Fines & Completion of Probation Reinstates Right to Vote
Post 4576
Posted on November 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Restore Voting Rights The Felon Must Pay Fines of $546.00
In Florida Supreme Court Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, ETH F-26-377, No. F-26-377 (October 29, 2026) citizen unnamed and to Ron Desantis Governor, Cord Byrd the Secretary of State Florida Division of Elections provided an advisory opinion to a convicted felon about his right to vote:
To: [redacted] We received your request for an advisory opinion. You indicate that you have one or more felony convictions and request whether you are eligible to vote, including whether you have any outstanding legal financial obligations under section 98.0751, Florida Statutes, and, if so, a statement of the amount that must be paid to make you eligible to vote, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.
The Division hereby responds to your request pursuant to its legal authority under section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida ...
Administrative Review Permits the Agency to Apply its Expertise
Post 4574
In Erwin Jordan Castro Valdez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, No. 26-cv-06147-BAS-JLB, United States District Court, S.D. California (October 30, 2026) Castro Valdez, a Cuban national paroled into the United States, was arrested on June 23, 2026, for alleged insurance fraud, grand theft, and making a false report to law enforcement. In his first habeas action, the district court ordered a bond hearing within fourteen days to determine whether the changed circumstances justified revoking his parole.
An Immigration Judge subsequently denied bond because of his pending state criminal case. Castro Valdez filed a second petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging that determination and requesting immediate release without first appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
LAW
According to the supplied text, § 2241 does not expressly require administrative exhaustion, but courts impose exhaustion as a prudential requirement. ...
Insured’s Ordered to Pay Insurer for Fraud by the Insureds
Post 4573
Posted on November 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In The Prudential Insurance Company Of America v. Carol Gardina and George Gardina, No. 6:23-cv-1125-JSS-DCI, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division (October 22, 2026).
THE JURY TRIAL AND VERDICT
Plaintiff sued Defendants for numerous causes of action stemming from its allegations that Defendants fraudulently collected benefits under their long-term care insurance policies. Plaintiff's case proceeded to a nine-day jury trial, after which the jury found Defendants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy.
The jury also found Defendant Carol Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $1,930,129 in compensatory damages and Defendant George Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $12,496 in compensatory damages and $20 in punitive damages. Thereafter, the court entered judgment in Plaintiff's favor and awarded Plaintiff $1,930,129 in compensatory damages from...
