435.014. Arbitrators, may not be subpoenaed — proceedings regarded as settlement negotiations, communications confidential. — 1. If all the parties to a dispute agree in writing to submit their dispute to any forum for arbitration, conciliation or mediation, then no person who serves as arbitrator, conciliator or mediator, nor any agent or employee of that person, shall be subpoenaed or otherwise compelled to disclose any matter disclosed in the process of setting up or conducting the arbitration, conciliation or mediation.
2. Arbitration, conciliation and mediation proceedings shall be regarded as settlement negotiations. Any communication relating to the subject matter of such disputes made during the resolution process by any participant, mediator, conciliator, arbitrator or any other person present at the dispute resolution shall be a confidential communication. No admission, representation, statement or other confidential communication made in setting up or conducting such proceedings not otherwise discoverable or obtainable shall be admissible as evidence or subject to discovery.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases, 1998–2001 · leading case:
Kenney v. Emge, 972 S.W.2d 616 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
Kenney v. Emge, 972 S.W.2d 616 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 12× “and the testimony of [defendant] regarding the mediation in contravention of section 435.014 RSMo.” 2 He contends the mediation discussions are considered settlement negotiations and “admission of such negotiations frustrates the public policy of encouraging settlements_”…”
Grp. Health Plan, Inc. v. BJC Health Sys., Inc., 30 S.W.3d 198 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 7× “In support of the request for injunctive relief, Respondents principally argued that the arbitrator exceeded her authority and disregarded Missouri law in issuing Appellant’s subpoena because, under Section 435.014 RSMo, 1994, 1 all the records from the Unity Arbitration are…”
CPK/Kupper Parker Commc'ns, Inc. v. Hart, 51 S.W.3d 881 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
“BJC argued that the arbitrator exceeded her authority and disregarded Missouri law in issuing Group Health Plan’s request for a subpoena because under the Missouri Arbitration Act, § 435.014, all the records from the Unity Arbitration were “confidential” and “not subject to…”
Cpk v. Hgl, 51 S.W.3d 881 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
“Id. at 199. Group Health Plan appealed, arguing that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to overrule an interlocutory discovery determination by an arbitrator in an ongoing arbitration.”
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 435.014(2): 1 case
Grp. Health Plan, Inc. v. BJC Health Sys., Inc., 30 S.W.3d 198 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).
“In support of the request for injunctive relief, Respondents principally argued that the arbitrator exceeded her authority and disregarded Missouri law in issuing Appellant’s subpoena because, under Section 435.014 RSMo, 1994, 1 all the records from the Unity Arbitration are…”
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.