814 for claims addressed in arbitration must be made by our supreme court or the legislature. Finally, Briggs asserts that the arbitration process under Wisconsin law is not fundamentally different from the judicial process. This proposition is contradicted by the well-recognized public policies in favor of arbitration. Briggs's general policy argument also ignores the core holding in Finkenbinder , where we explained that the fundamental flaw in awarding costs was that a circuit court does not have any statutory authorization to consider assessing costs where the claim was addressed in arbitration. See id . at 152.
Farmers also contends that the circuit court erred by assessing double costs and interest under Wis.
After Briggs filed her claim in circuit court, both parties signed an agreement stipulating to a stay of the court proceedings so that the claim could be arbitrated. Farmers did not respond to the offer. Whether Briggs is entitled to double costs and interest requires application of Wis. Applying a statute to a set of facts is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. See State ex rel.