Court Opinion

ID: 9852150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:25:26.972503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:23.294188
License: Public Domain

ERWIN, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent and would affirm the decision of the trial court. I believe the decisions of New York1 and Minnesota2 embody the better reasoned view and should be adopted as the rule in Alaska.
In my opinion, the courts of Alaska have the power to order consolidation of arbitration proceedings even in the absence of statutory authorization in order to avoid duplication of effort, expense and litigation.3 Courts have statutory authority *256to review arbitration proceedings.4 The concept of limited review of arbitration awards adopted by this court5 is rendered impotent by permitting conflicting decisions in two arbitration disputes involving identical issues. The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel are designed to prevent such inconsistent results in the case of multiple, related lawsuits, and consistent results are similarly important in arbitration cases.
While I recognize that arbitration is a creature of contract, the procedure advocated herein would not affect the rights of the parties as reflected in their contracts, except to provide a logical method by which to recognize and apply those rights.
ORDER ON REHEARING
1. In its petition for rehearing ap-pellee Greater Anchorage Area Borough urges that because appellant drew the contract in question, the contract should be construed against appellant. That principle should not be resorted to when other means of ascertaining the reasonable expectations of the parties are available, as they were here. This does not, therefore, present an adequate ground for rehearing.
2. The case of Polshek & Associates v. Bergen County Ironworks, 142 N.J.Super. 516, 362 A.2d 63 (1976), does not convince us that the two earlier New Jersey cases cited in the opinion herein lack persuasive force. Rehearing will not be granted as to this question.
3. Appellee asserts that the reference at page 255 of the opinion herein to the policy of the American Arbitration Association (of not approving consolidation without the written consent of the parties) is not supported by the record. We note that the record contains (R.18) a letter from the regional director of the Association which evinces this policy. We find no reason to grant rehearing on this basis.

. Materials International v. Manning Fabrics, Inc., 46 A.D.2d 627, 359 N.Y.S.2d 812 (1974); In re Vigo Steamship Corp., 26 N.Y.2d 157, 309 N.Y.S.2d 165, 257 N.E.2d 624, cert. denied 400 U.S. 819, 91 S.Ct. 36, 27 L.Ed.2d 46 (1970); Chariot Textiles Corp. v. Wannalancit Textile Co., 18 N.Y.2d 793, 275 N.Y.S.2d 382, 221 N.E.2d 913 (1966); Symphony Fabrics Corp. v. Bernson Silk Mills, Inc., 12 N.Y.2d 409, 240 N.Y.S.2d 23, 190 N.E.2d 418 (1963).

. The Supreme Court of Minnesota adopted the New York view in Grover-Dimond Assoc, v. American Arbitration Ass’n, 297 Minn. 324, 211 N.W.2d 787 (1973). Like the case at bar, Grover-Dimond involved disputes between a building owner and its contractor and between the owner and its architect.

. See generally University of Alaska v. Modern Constr., Inc., 522 P.2d 1132, 1138 (Alaska 1974), wherein this court held that contracts should be construed liberally in favor of arbi-trability. See also Nizinski v. Golden Valley Elec. Ass’n, 509 P.2d 280 (Alaska 1973).

. See Alaska’s version of the Uniform Arbitration Act, AS 09.43.010 et seq.

. Anchorage Medical and Surgical Clinic v. James, 555 P.2d 1320 (Alaska 1976).