I was involved in an accident and now my insurance and the other persons insurance couldn't come to an agreement as to who is at fault. I called the other person's insurance (Geico) and they're telling me that is an arbitration with my insurance and could take 3-4 months! What does this mean?

2 Answers 2


The companies agree to resolve the dispute with a neutral arbitrator. This is similar to a court action, but instead of a judge or panel of judges, there is an arbitrator or panel of arbitrators. The two parties to the dispute must agree to this in advance.

For more information, you can consult the rather thorough Wikipedia article on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration

  • So, if I lose, am I paying for the damages or my insurance? I'm thinking about getting an attorney.....
    – Noah4343
    Commented Jul 5, 2016 at 16:53
  • 3
    @Noah4343 your insurance should pay, subject to the terms of your agreement. In this case, your premiums will probably go up. If the other person is found to be at fault, Geico will pay. If I were you I would not get an attorney until someone sent me a bill.
    – phoog
    Commented Jul 5, 2016 at 16:56

Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution. Alternative means outside of court.

There are two primary methods of alternative dispute resolution: arbitration and mediation. It is instructive to understand the differences between the two.

Arbitration is result oriented.

The salient feature of arbitration is that the two parties submit their resolution proposals and a third party (the arbitrator) picks the one s/he considers most fair. This gives both parties incentive to submit fair proposals. If the rules were, say, to split the difference, the parties would have the opposite incentive. To take the most extreme position in order to influence the outcome more toward their side. So the rules of arbitration are designed to facilitate fair (or middleground) proposals by the parties.

Mediation is process oriented.

By contrast, mediation is a method by which the parties engage with a third party (the mediator) who acts as an interlocutor to help the parties negotiate a settlement. Often times, it is helpful for the mediator to also serve as an arbitrator in the event the parties can not reach an agreement. The threat of arbitration gives the parties incentive to negotiate in good faith. And it gives the mediator extra influence over the parties during the negotiation process to help them reach agreement.

Alternative dispute resolution is becoming increasingly common because it is timely, effective and cost-efficient relative to judicial proceedings. Each method has its unique set of advantages and disadvantages. Each can be used alone but they are often most effective when used together — mediation followed by arbitration if mediation fails.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .