From the summary disposition order Oceanic Companies, Inc. v. Kukui`ula Development Co., No. 30126 (March 18, 2011).
A petition to compel arbitration is reviewed de novo. The standard is the same as that which would be applicable to a motion for summary judgment, and the trial court’s decision is reviewed using the same standard employed by the trial court and based upon the same evidentiary materials as were before it in determination of the motion.
Douglass v. Pflueger Haw., Inc., 110 Hawai’i 520, 524-25, 135 P.3d 129, 133-34 (2006) (internal quotation marks, citations, and brackets omitted) (quoting Brown v. KFC Nat’l Mgmt. Co., 82 Hawai’i 226, 231, 921 P.2d 146, 151 (1996)). “[W]hen presented with a motion to compel arbitration, the court is limited to answering two questions: 1) whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties; and 2) if so, whether the subject matter of the dispute is arbitrable under such agreement.” Hawaii Med. Ass’n v. Hawaii Med. Serv. Ass’n, 113 Hawai’i 77, 91, 148 P.3d 1179, 1193 (2006) (quoting Ko’olau Radiology, Inc. v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 73 Haw. 433, 445, 834 P.2d 1294, 1300 (1992)). In this case, we are presented with the former question: whether an arbitration agreement exists which mandates arbitration.
“Arbitration is a matter of contract; so a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit.” Sher v. Cella, 114 Hawai’i 263, 267, 160 P.3d 1250, 1254 (App. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “[A]n agreement should be construed as a whole and its meaning determined from the entire context and not from any particular word, phrase or clause.” Leeward Bus Co. v. City and County of Honolulu, 58 Haw. 64, 68-69, 564 P.2d 445, 448 (1977) (quoting Ching v. Hawaiian Rests. Ltd., 50 Haw. 563, 565, 445 P.2d 370, 372 (1968)). “Absent an ambiguity, contract terms should be interpreted according to their plain, ordinary, and accepted sense in common speech.” Hi Kai Inv., Ltd. v. Aloha Futons Beds & Waterbeds, Inc., 84 Hawai’i 75, 78, 929 P.2d 88, 91 (1996) (quoting Cho Mark Oriental Food v. K.K. Int’l, 73 Haw. 509, 520, 836 P.2d 1057, 1064 (1992)).
