(dissenting) — The superior court ordered Farmers Insurance Company and Ivan Frederickson to participate in arbitration because it held that Mr. Frederickson had presented "sufficient evidence ... to present his claim for uninsured motorist benefits to Arbitration.” The majority concludes "[t]he existence of sufficient verification” is an issue of coverage which must be decided by the court. I believe the superior court properly ruled the matter was for an arbitrator. I respectfully dissent.
Under the Farmers insurance policy, a phantom vehicle is an underinsured motor vehicle. Part II of the policy provides:
Determination as to whether an insured person is legally entitled to recover damages or the amount of damages shall be made by agreement between the insured person and us. If no agreement is reached, the decision will be made by arbitration.
(Emphasis added.) The policy’s "Arbitration” clause further states:
If an insured person and we do not agree (1) that the person is legally entitled to recover damages from the owner or operator of an underinsured motor vehicle, or (2) as to the amount of payment under this Part, either that person or we may demand that the issue be determined by arbitration.
(Emphasis added.)
The majority notes the term coverage has a narrow and precise meaning: the "determination of who is insured, the type of risk insured against, and whether an insurance contract exists.” Kraus v. Grange Ins. Ass’n, 48 Wn. App. 883, 886, 740 P.2d 918 (1987). In this case, however, there is no dispute as to who is insured. And Farmers does not challenge that the policy provides for underinsured motorist coverage. It is also undisputed that the insurance contract was in effect. The question here is whether Mr. *324Frederickson has shown sufficient corroboration to prove the existence of a phantom vehicle.
In Powell v. Viking Ins. Co., 44 Wn. App. 495, 722 P.2d 1343 (1986), we addressed whether an affidavit submitted by the insured’s wife indicated that her husband had swerved to avoid a phantom vehicle. That statement conflicted with an earlier one she had given. We said the "conflicting statements raise a serious credibility problem that creates an issue of fact for the arbitrators as to the existence of the phantom vehicle.” Powell, 44 Wn. App. at 503 (emphasis added).
Similarly, in Nationwide Ins. v. Williams, 71 Wn. App. 336, 858 P.2d 516 (1993), review denied, 123 Wn.2d 1022 (1994), the insurer had successfully argued in superior court that the policy did not cover the insured’s underinsured motorists claim because of a lack of corroborative evidence. The insured appealed the order staying arbitration. Division Two reversed, concluding that the insured had met his threshold burden of presenting competent corroborative evidence of a phantom vehicle. It noted that in so doing it did not express any "opinion as to the merits of the underlying controversy over liability and damages. . . . We simply hold that the [insureds] have produced the minimum amount of corroborative evidence necessary to put the matter before an arbitrator.” Nationwide, 71 Wn. App. at 344 n.5. According to the court, the arbitrator has the task of weighing the evidence and evaluating the claim in light of the statute and insurance contract. Nationwide, 71 Wn. App. at 344 n.5; see also Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Novak, 83 Wn.2d 576, 586, 520 P.2d 1368 (1974) (issues of liability are properly matters for arbitration); Liljestrand v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 47 Wn. App. 283, 286, 734 P.2d 945 (arbitrator denied claim holding there was a lack of independent corroboration of presence of phantom vehicle), review denied, 108 Wn.2d 1017 (1987).
The question here is factual — whether Mr. Frederickson was run off of the road by a phantom car. The arbitrator should answer that question.
*325I would therefore affirm.