JUSTICE LYTTON delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, Stratford West Homeowners Association (Stratford),filed an insurance claim with defendant, Country Mutual InsuranceCompany (Country Mutual), for damages sustained to Stratford'scondominium buildings during a hailstorm. The parties agreed toparticipate in an appraisal to determine the amount of loss. Stratford disagreed with the appraisal and brought suit againstCountry Mutual, which filed affirmative defenses claiming thatStratford was bound by the appraiser's valuation. Stratford movedto strike the affirmative defenses based on DeGroot v. FarmersMutual Hail Insurance Company of Iowa, 267 Ill. App. 3d 723 (1995). The trial court granted the motion and, pursuant to Supreme CourtRule 308, certified the question for appeal.

FACTS

Country Mutual agreed to insure certain condominiums owned byStratford. In 1998, some condominiums suffered damage during hailand wind storms. Pursuant to the insurance policy, the partiesattempted to agree on the amount of loss. Stratford and CountryMutual failed to agree and, in accordance with the insurancepolicy, selected appraisers and participated in an appraisalprocess. The relevant clause in the policy stated:

If you and we fail to agree on the amount of loss, eithermay demand that the amount of the loss be set byappraisal. If either makes a written demand forappraisal, each will select a competent, independentappraiser ***. The two appraisers will then select acompetent impartial umpire ***. The appraisers will thenset the amount of the loss. If the appraisers submit awritten report of an agreement to us, the amount agreedon will be the amount of the loss. If the appraisersfail to agree within a reasonable time, they will submittheir differences to the umpire. A written agreementsigned by any two of these three will set the amount ofloss.

The appraisers disagreed on the amount of loss. The umpirethen submitted an opinion valuing Stratford West's loss at$59,429.00. Stratford West disagreed with the valuation and fileda two-count complaint against Country Mutual to recover for thedamage to the condominiums. Country Mutual filed affirmativedefenses, claiming that since Stratford West participated in theappraisal process, it was bound by the umpire's decision. Stratford West moved to strike the defenses. The court grantedthat motion and certified the following question for appeal underSupreme Court Rule 308:

Where the insurance policy provided that suit in a courtof law against the insurance company may not bemaintained until the insured has complied with all thepolicy provisions, and that same policy of insuranceprovided for an appraisal procedure if the insured andthe insurance company failed to agree upon the amount ofthe loss so that either could demand that the amount ofthe loss be set by appraisal, does an award made pursuantto that appraisal clause: (1) operate as a final andbinding resolution of the parties' dispute over theamount of the plaintiff's loss; and (2) foreclose eitherparty from subsequently maintaining an action in a courtof law to determine the amount of the loss?

ANALYSIS

The interpretation of an insurance contract is a question oflaw subject to de novo review. Traveler's Insurance Co. v. EljerManufacturing, 197 Ill. 2d 278, 292 (2001).

Stratford argues that the trial court properly followed ourdecision in DeGroot v. Farmer's Mutual Hail Insurance Co. of Iowa,267 Ill. App. 3d 723 (1994), when it struck Country Mutual'saffirmative defenses. In DeGroot, this court held that thedecision by the appraisers was not binding on the parties becausethe policy did not clearly indicate that the insured was giving upits right to file suit. Country Mutual admits that the presentcase is indistinguishable, but urges us overturn our holding inDeGroot.

The contract language here is nearly identical to the languagein DeGroot. The provision in question is essentially anarbitration clause, and we acknowledge that the Uniform ArbitrationAct applies. The Act states that a written agreement to submit anissue to arbitration is "valid, enforceable and irrevocable." 710ILCS 5/1 (West 1999). However, non-binding arbitration exists inIllinois as a means of resolving disputes, and neither the Act norIllinois case law mandates that all arbitration must be binding. Mayflower Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Mahan, 180 Ill. App. 3d 216-18(1988).

We see no reason to depart from our recent holding in DeGroot.Any waiver of the right to file suit must be clear and unambiguous.DeGroot, 267 Ill. App. 3d at 725. Without language requiringbinding arbitration, a policy will be construed as an agreement tosubmit to non-binding arbitration. DeGroot, 267 Ill. App. 3d at725. Nothing in the insurance contract indicated that, byparticipating in the appraisal, Stratford was forfeiting its rightto seek redress in court. We decline the opportunity to lower thestandard under which parties relinquish their right to sue. Aparty's waiver of that right must be evident from the agreement.

In this case, the appraisal does not operate as a final andbinding resolution of the parties' dispute over the amount of theloss and does not foreclose either party from maintaining an actionin a court of law. The plaintiff did not give up his right to filesuit, and the trial court properly struck Country Mutual'sdefenses.

CONCLUSION

The certified question is answered and the cause isremanded.

Certified question answered; cause remanded.

BARRY and HOLDRIDGE, JJ., concur.