Trial De Novo: Requesting a New Trial After Arbitration
An arbitration award is not always the end of the road. Washington’s civil arbitration rules give either side the right to reject the award and start over with a fresh trial in superior court. This is called a trial de novo — Latin for “anew.” It is a powerful right, but it comes with a firm deadline and a real financial risk, and both are worth understanding whether you are considering it or the other side is.
Disclaimer: This post is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance specific to your situation, please consult with a qualified personal injury attorney.
What a Trial De Novo Actually Is
A trial de novo wipes the slate clean. The arbitration award is set aside, and the case proceeds to a new trial as if the arbitration had not happened — usually before a jury, if a jury has been demanded. Because it is a regular trial, the dollar threshold that applied in arbitration no longer caps the outcome. In many respects the case is simply back on the standard litigation track.
Importantly, the trial de novo is not an appeal in the usual sense. No one is arguing that the arbitrator made a legal error to be reviewed by a higher court. Under Washington’s rules, if a party is unhappy with an arbitration award, the remedy is not to ask a judge to throw it out — it is to request a new trial. The arbitrator’s reasoning does not carry over.
The 20-Day Deadline — and Why It Is Unforgiving
To request a trial de novo, a party must both file and serve the request within 20 days. That period runs after the arbitrator files proof of service of the later of the award or a timely decision on costs and attorney fees. Two features of this deadline trip people up:
- It cannot be extended. There is no mechanism to ask for more time.
- There is no extra grace period for mailing. Do not assume a few additional days are built in — they are not.
Because the window is so strict, the request has to be done correctly and on time, including proper service, not just filing. The request also has to be signed as the rule requires, a formality that occasionally becomes the difference between a valid request and one that can be challenged.
The Cost Risk: Fee-Shifting
The most significant consideration in a trial de novo is the possibility of fee-shifting, and it cuts both ways. In general, the party who requests the trial de novo and then fails to improve its position at the new trial can be required to pay the other side’s costs authorized by statute or court rule, plus reasonable attorney fees incurred after the trial-de-novo request was made. In other words, the exposure is not the entire expense of running a second proceeding — it is a defined set of costs together with the attorney fees generated once the request is on file.
This is a serious deterrent. Requesting a new trial and then failing to improve its position can leave the requesting party responsible for a substantial fee award. That is exactly why the decision to seek — or to accept — a trial de novo deserves careful, case-specific analysis rather than a reflexive reaction to a disappointing number.
Mechanisms That Can Affect the Comparison
Washington’s rules also include tools such as offers of compromise, which can change the figure used to measure whether a party “improved its position” for fee-shifting purposes. These mechanisms are procedural and rule-governed, and how they apply depends heavily on the facts, the timing, and the numbers in a given case. The takeaway for most people is simply that the fee-shifting question is more nuanced than it first appears, and it is one your attorney will analyze closely before anyone commits to a new trial.
It is also worth remembering that a trial de novo is a genuine trial, with the discovery, motions, and preparation that any trial involves. That is part of why the decision is rarely made lightly. When the other side is the one requesting a new trial, the same considerations apply in reverse: the request has to meet the strict deadline and signing requirements to be valid, and it exposes the requesting party to the same fee-shifting risk if the new result does not improve on the award. Confirming that an opponent’s request was actually filed and served properly, and on time, is one of the first things worth checking.
Final Thoughts
A trial de novo is a genuine second chance, but it is governed by a hard 20-day, file-and-serve deadline that cannot be extended, and it carries a real risk of paying the other side’s rule-defined costs and post-request attorney fees if the requesting party does not improve its position. Because the stakes and the timing are both unforgiving, this is a decision to make deliberately and with counsel.
If you are weighing a trial de novo — or you have learned the other side filed one — we can help you understand the deadlines and the risks. Reach out to schedule a consultation. Our firm represents injured people throughout Washington State.
