√─┌╬─ ┐│ LaserRetrieve Version 2.4É %Thursday August 23, 1990 1:52 am │└╬─┘┌╬─┐│à :169 ILL. APP. 3D 702 ELLIOTT V. INTER-INSURANCE EXCHANGEà 1988å │├╬─┤│ 707╩ ││╬ L││ Uniform Arbitration Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 10, par. 101 et seq.),ä I││ the court is the appropriate tribunal to determine questions involvingç ││ the res judicata and/or collateral estoppel effect of a prior adjudication ││ award. (Monmouth Public Schools, District No. 38 v. Pullen (1985),ï F││ 141 Ill. App. 3d 60, 489 N.E.2d 1100.) Moreover, where parties haveè I││ contracted to resolve insurance policy disputes through arbitration, aç K││ declaratory judgment should not be sought until after arbitration unlessà C││ the dispute involves the question of whether a valid arbitrationì I││ agreement exists and, if so, whether the disputed issue is arbitrable.ç E││ Allstate Insurance Co. v. Elkins (1978), 63 Ill. App. 3d 62, 381ï :││ N.E.2d 1, aff'd (1979), 77 Ill. 2d 384, 396 N.E.2d 528.û ││à @>>7, 8 The Uniform Arbitration Act does not control which issuesë L││ are subject to arbitration; that is governed by the arbitration agreementä >││ between the parties. (Flood v. Country Mutual Insurance Co.Æ D││ (1968), 41 Ill. 2d 91, 242 N.E.2d 149.) And, whether a dispute isî │└╬─M┘ <ESC>=HitList <ENTER>=Print <F3>&<F2>=HitWord <ALT-F6>=Internal Searchä ≥p■p≤■╬╬╬╬àpppêp╜╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╤╦p>=Internal Searchä ≥p■p≤■╬╬╬╬àpppêp╜╬
