Washington lawmakers are considering a bill that would require many long-delayed tort claims to go through arbitration before reaching court. Supporters argue it would help curb rising liability and insurance costs for counties and school districts, while critics caution it could suppress serious claims and force survivors to revisit traumatic experiences.
How the bill would work
Senate Bill 6239 would make arbitration mandatory for tort claims filed more than ten years after an incident, or more than ten years after a claimant turns 18 if the harm occurred when they were a minor, according to the Senate bill report. Arbitration would remain optional for other kinds of claims.
The measure keeps a path to court intact. Any arbitration award could be appealed, and the superior court would then hold a trial de novo, including the option of a jury. Committee staff note that the fiscal impact of the bill depends heavily on how many late-filed cases actually move into arbitration rather than going straight to litigation.
Survivors' advocates raise alarm
At a Feb. 5 hearing in the Senate Ways & Means Committee, attorneys for survivors argued that mandatory arbitration would push some of the most sensitive cases out of public view and, as one put it, "raise the cost of speaking at all," as reported by Tacoma Weekly. They also warned that survivors could be forced to tell their stories twice if they go through arbitration and then proceed to a full trial.
Those attorneys urged lawmakers to build in stronger protections, including a sunset clause and explicit victim-centered safeguards, arguing that the current structure risks re-traumatizing people who already waited years to come forward.
Backers point to runaway county costs
Local governments, school districts and the state's risk pools have told legislators that liability and insurance costs are climbing fast and threatening core public services, according to testimony summarized in the Senate bill report. Paul Jewell of the Washington State Association of Counties told lawmakers that nearly half of surveyed counties listed liability and insurance among their top fiscal pressures.
Brad Tower of the Washington Counties Risk Pool added that requiring arbitration for older claims could trim procedural expenses, a change he and other supporters say would help stabilize budgets already squeezed by other rising costs.
What comes next
The Senate Ways & Means Committee has amended SB 6239 and advanced a substitute version, and the bill now sits on second reading in the Senate, according to LegiScan. The committee added requirements that arbitrators receive victim-centered, trauma-informed training and ordered a Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee study, with findings due by Dec. 31, 2032.
Tacoma Weekly notes that the bill would not alter survivors' existing rights under state law to bring historical childhood sexual abuse claims. It would, however, insert arbitration as an initial step for certain late-filed cases that currently could proceed directly into court.
Legal and transparency questions
Several plaintiff firms and advocates are pressing lawmakers to rethink the proposal. They argue that mandatory arbitration could duplicate proceedings, shift more costs onto claimants and blunt public accountability by moving disputes into a less visible forum. Attorneys at Schroeter Goldmark & Bender urged legislators to reject SB 6239 in a Feb. 13 release and called for a survivor-centered alternative.
Critics say the bill leaves unresolved some key practical questions, including who would pay for arbitration, how particularly complex historical abuse claims would be managed and whether the shift would actually lower overall costs. Those are the details lawmakers will have to hash out if the measure keeps moving through the Legislature.
