barred plaintiff’s subsequent lawsuit premised on the allegation that Mr. Linares (Frankenmuth’s insured) was negligent in causing the auto accident at issue in this case. This case may more properly come within the scope of the doctrine of collateral estoppel, given that plaintiff seeks recovery of alleged damages not covered by his insurance policy with Liberty Mutual. Here, however, the distinction is not determinative because, through either doctrine, the trial court ruled that the arbitration panel’s decision in favor of Frankenmuth was binding on plaintiff as Liberty Mutual’s insured. Preclusive effect is not limited to court proceedings; it arises in the same manner from arbitration awards. See Murakami v. Wilmington Star News, Inc., 137 N.C. App. 357, 360, 528 S.E.2d 68, 70 (<HOLDING>), disc. review denied, 352 N.C. 148, 544 S.E.2d
holding that collateral estoppel applies to  1983 claims holding that res judicata and collateral estoppel apply to arbitration award holding doctrine of collateral estoppel may apply to unconfirmed arbitration award recognizing the doctrine of collateral estoppel in agency proceedings holding collateral estoppel elements met considering changed circumstances in the context of an exception to the general rule of collateral estoppel