919, 923, 891 P.2d 712 (1995). ANALYSIS I. The Public Policy Exception to the Enforcement of Arbitration Awards A. Whether To Adopt the Public Policy Exception ¶7 This court will review an arbitration decision only in very limited circumstances, such as when an arbitrator has exceeded his or her legal authority. Clark County Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 125, 150 Wn.2d 237, 245, 76 P.3d 248 (2003). Reviewing an arbitration decision for mistakes of law or fact would call into question the finality of arbitration decisions and undermine alternative dispute resolution. Id. at 246. Further, a more extensive review of arbitration decisions would weaken the value of bargained for, binding arbitration and could damage the freedom of contract. See id. at 247 (<HOLDING>). ¶8 Nonetheless, federal courts and many other
holding that the federal arbitration act requires piecemeal resolution when necessary to give effect to an arbitration agreement and mandates enforcement of an arbitration agreement notwithstanding the presence of other persons who are parties to the underlying dispute but not to the arbitration agreement emphasis added recognizing parties right by contact or agreement to submit or to agree to submit controversies to arbitration  holding plaintiffs had waived their right to arbitrate where they had consistently resisted arbitration and only when an unfavorable judgment was entered against them at trial did they seek to compel arbitration holding that when parties voluntarily submit to binding arbitration they generally believe that they are trading their right to appeal an arbitration award for a relatively speedy and inexpensive resolution to their dispute holding that arbitration award is binding on the parties