Opinion ID: 2632961
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Superior Court Had Jurisdiction To Decide Arbitrability.

Text: Lexington first challenges the superior court's jurisdiction to decide the question of arbitrabilityin other words, to decide whether the terms of the agreement called for the dispute to be referred to an arbitrator. It argues that in the absence of allegations of fraud or unconscionability with respect to the arbitration agreement itself, only the arbitrator can determine arbitrability. Goldbelt Eagle responds that the court properly decided arbitrability. Because federal and state arbitration law provide courts with jurisdiction to decide arbitrability, we agree with Goldbelt Eagle that the superior court had jurisdiction to decide arbitrability. A dispute is arbitrable under federal law if the agreement creates a duty for the parties to arbitrate the particular dispute. [6] The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that courts are the proper forum to decide arbitrability unless the parties' agreement explicitly provides that the issue of arbitrability is for the arbitrator. In AT & T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, the Court held that the question of arbitrability . . . is undeniably an issue for judicial determination [u]nless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise. [7] Alaska state law mirrors federal law and provides that courts are the proper forum to determine whether a dispute is arbitrable. In State of Alaska v. Public Safety Employees Ass'n, we adopted the federal rule that arbitrability is a question for the courts `[u]nless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise.' [8] Because the arbitration clause in the agreement between Lexington and Goldbelt Eagle is silent on the proper forum to decide arbitrability, it does not clearly and unmistakably rebut the presumption that the courts decide whether a dispute is arbitrable under the terms of the agreement. The superior court thus correctly determined that it had jurisdiction to decide whether the dispute should be referred to an arbitrator.