Presumably, the ability of attorneys to advance arbitration costs is limited, thereby reducing plaintiff's ability to obtain legal representation. A forum that is economically inaccessible to many if not most plaintiffs is de facto biased in favor of defendant insurance companies that are not required to stand and defend their actions against claims that cannot be brought against them. Plaintiffs who cannot afford to pay are denied an alternative forum, i.e., an affordable judge and jury. There is nothing in the statutory notices putting plaintiffs on notice of the higher costs of arbitration as opposed to jury or court trial. C. Alternative insurance products allowing plaintiffs to bring suit in court are generally unavailable.
Arbitrators are more likely to be biased toward the defense.
The requirement that both parties agree on a 'neutral' arbitrator is equivalent to unlimited peremptory challenges by each party. These peremptory challenges are more beneficial to the defendant than to the plaintiff. C. Defendants arbitrate much more frequently than plaintiff so can maintain a dossier on arbitrators. D. Use of unlimited peremptory challenges allows defendants to blackball arbitrators who find for plaintiffs. E. Many arbitrators depend on repeat business for a significant portion of their income.