between Liberty Mutual and Frankenmuth. See Rodgers Builders, 76 N.C. App. at 29, 331 S.E.2d at 734 (“Although James McQueen was not named as a party to the arbitration, it is clear that he had a strong financial interest in the determination of the issues there because of his ownership interests in McQueen Properties and Parkhill Associates, and that he was an active and controlling participant in the arbitration. He thus is bound by the judgment entered on the arbitration award just as if he were a named party to the proceeding.”); see also Levin-Townsend Computer Corp. v. Holland, 29 A.D.2d 925, 92 lled, participated in, or even had notice of the arbitration proceedings in this case. See Baldwin v. Brooks, 83 A.D.2d 85, 85-90, 443 N.Y.S.2d 906, 907-10 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981) (<HOLDING>). The trial court, therefore, erred in granting
holding arbitration decision disallowing insurers coverage defense binding in subsequent personal injury action where the issue was actually litigated and decided in prior action holding that an aaa arbitration was a private proceeding and therefore that a decision by the arbitrator pursuant to the federal arbitration act did not constitute state action holding trial court must decide whether to compel arbitration of personal injury claim of party who was not signatory to arbitration agreement holding that driver was not bound in subsequent personal injury case by prior arbitration decision that plaintiffs injuries were related to auto accident because driver was not in privity with his insurance carrier and did not participate in arbitration holding that plaintiffs personal injury action against other driver in auto accident was not precluded by arbitration award between insurance carriers regarding damage to plaintiffs car because plaintiff did not participate in or control arbitration was not a party to arbitration agreement did not adopt agreement or attempt to benefit from agreement