Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 601-20 (2026)

]  Court annexed arbitration program

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     [§601-20]  Court annexed arbitration program.  (a)  There is established within the judiciary a court annexed arbitration program which shall be a mandatory and nonbinding arbitration program to provide for a procedure to obtain prompt and equitable resolution of certain civil actions in tort through arbitration.  The supreme court shall adopt rules for the implementation and administration of the program by January 1, 1987.

     (b)  All civil actions in tort, having a probable jury award value, not reduced by the issue of liability, exclusive of interest and costs, of $150,000 or less, shall be submitted to the program and be subject to determination of arbitrability and to arbitration under the rules governing the program.  The rules shall include a procedure to classify and establish the order of priority according to which the actions will be processed for the determination of arbitrability and for the arbitration under the program.  The court may, at its discretion, remove any action from the program.

     (c)  The chief justice may hire on a contractual basis, and at the chief justice's pleasure remove, without regard to chapter 76, an arbitration administrator, who shall be responsible for the operation and management of the program, and such other persons deemed necessary for the purposes of the program in the judgment of the chief justice. [L Sp 1986, c 2, §21; am L 2000, c 253, §150]

 

Cross References

 

  Bypass of court annexed arbitration, see §671-16.5.

  Center for alternative dispute resolution, see chapter 613.

 

Rules of Court

 

  Applicability of Hawaii Arbitration Rules, see RCC rule 34.

 

Law Journals and Reviews

 

  Settling Civil Lawsuits in the Hawaii Circuit Courts.  10 HBJ, no. 13, at 1 (2007).

  The Impact of Discovery Limitations on Cost, Satisfaction, and Pace in Court-Annexed Arbitration.  11 UH L. Rev. 81 (1989).

  Tort and Insurance "Reform" in a Common Law Court.  14 UH L. Rev. 55 (1992).

  Striking a Balance:  Procedural Reform Under the Lum Court.  14 UH L. Rev. 223 (1992).

 

Case Notes

 

  Subsection (b) did not violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  76 H. 494, 880 P.2d 169 (1994).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1994–2018 · leading case: Richardson v. Sport Shinko (Waikiki Corp.), 880 P.2d 169 (Haw. 1994).
Richardson v. Sport Shinko (Waikiki Corp.), 880 P.2d 169 (Haw. 1994). · cites it 18× “” HRS § 601-20(a) (Supp.1992); HAR 2(A); Spec.”
Darcy v. Lolohea, 886 P.2d 759 (Haw. App. 1994). · cites it 9× “Accord HRS § 601-20. After a hearing, the arbitrator herein issued a decision in favor of Plaintiffs, awarding $5,000 in special damages to Edward, as his reasonable and necessary medical expenses, and $15,000 in general damages.”
Kim v. Reilly, 94 P.3d 648 (Haw. 2004). · cites it 4× “The case was subsequently submitted to the Court Annexed Arbitration Program (the Program), pursuant to HRS § 601-20 (1993). 2 On June 22, 2001, separate arbitration awards were filed in favor of Kim and Lee and against Reilly in the amounts of $13,500.”
Murphy v. Lovin, 284 P.3d 918 (Haw. App. 2011). · cites it 8× “The CAAP was established in 1986 pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 601-20 (1993 Repl.), which states in part: [§ 601-20] Court annexed arbitration program, (a) There is established within the judiciary a court annexed arbitration program which shall be a mandatory and…”
Sousaris v. Miller, 993 P.2d 539 (Haw. 2000). · cites it 2× “The filing of a motion to alter or amend destroys the finality for purposes of appeal of any judgment that has been entered”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), cert.”
AIG Hawaii Ins. Co., Inc. v. Rutledge, 955 P.2d 1069 (Haw. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “The Court Annexed Arbitration Program is a "mandatory and nonbinding arbitration program [which] providefs] .”
Dorrance v. Lee, 976 P.2d 904 (Haw. 1999). “Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 601-20 (1993) states in pertinent part: Court annexed arbitration program, (a) There is established within the judiciary a court annexed arbitration program which shall be a mandatory and nonbinding arbitration program to provide for a procedure…”
Molinar v. Schweizer, 22 P.3d 978 (Haw. 2001). “The CAAP was established pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 601-20 (1993). The CAAP is a mandatory, non-binding arbitration program for certain civil cases in the State of Hawaii.”
Kamaunu v. Kaaea, 56 P.3d 734 (Haw. App. 2002). “The Court Annexed Arbitration Program (CAAP) was established pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 601-20 (1993), which provides as follows: Court annexed arbitration program, (a) There is established within Ae judiciary a court annexed arbitration program which shall be a…”
Siangco v. Kasadate, 883 P.2d 78 (Haw. 1994). “Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 601-20 (Supp.1992) and the Hawaii Arbitration Rules (HAR), the case was assigned to the Court Annexed Arbitration Program, and an arbitration hearing was held.”
W. Va. Inv. Mgmt. Bd., Body Corp. v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 820 S.E.2d 416 (W. Va. 2018). “103 (2007) (same) ; Haw. Rev. Stat. § 601-20 (2000) (non-binding arbitration with neutral arbitrators); Ill.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 601-20(a) — 4 cases
Richardson v. Sport Shinko (Waikiki Corp.), 880 P.2d 169 (Haw. 1994). “” HRS § 601-20(a) (Supp.1992); HAR 2(A); Spec.”
Darcy v. Lolohea, 886 P.2d 759 (Haw. App. 1994). “Accord HRS § 601-20. After a hearing, the arbitrator herein issued a decision in favor of Plaintiffs, awarding $5,000 in special damages to Edward, as his reasonable and necessary medical expenses, and $15,000 in general damages.”
Murphy v. Lovin, 284 P.3d 918 (Haw. App. 2011). “The CAAP was established in 1986 pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 601-20 (1993 Repl.), which states in part: [§ 601-20] Court annexed arbitration program, (a) There is established within the judiciary a court annexed arbitration program which shall be a mandatory and…”
AIG Hawaii Ins. Co., Inc. v. Rutledge, 955 P.2d 1069 (Haw. App. 1998). “The Court Annexed Arbitration Program is a "mandatory and nonbinding arbitration program [which] providefs] .”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 601-20(a)(3) — 1 case
Sousaris v. Miller, 993 P.2d 539 (Haw. 2000). “The filing of a motion to alter or amend destroys the finality for purposes of appeal of any judgment that has been entered”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), cert.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 601-20(b) — 1 case
Richardson v. Sport Shinko (Waikiki Corp.), 880 P.2d 169 (Haw. 1994). “” HRS § 601-20(a) (Supp.1992); HAR 2(A); Spec.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.