ÿWPC-$ XƱ–Ý9“±W'ú½cuš†Ä°§„ùŠîíÀ€–3s˜ÄÍxŒƒ‡zÔ¥oä*ÂT³;ó° @XæšIA×ë(ýgäTºeý HÃf›§ÆzXÏп{hq,Í~¤GOŽPÎ\íîLÈw®›#Ø;&DÜn7ë0záþ b±¼˜0Üz»{¹Â™Âf“ÈH>¼3Oî°}«tm©ø¶h+¶†œiS:†MùYý£kÒ^°b‚e2¦æ}Pç7Ç7òŠã@`MlH˜·s!Hý†ãØÿÞÂóЇĆj- ý¼JEÈT¡ÄØÂÑɧòOݱª[†-ØÏŠþ=LF(ì)G^Xâ—…Ú5ãâI Ð\ ø!Hô‚fÆê~ÑñykI)ßâBÎ9¢“Í=UÔ ™••É©4aX"{ÈNˆeü›à3)xHöx.†Rl‘wMH¬ÒKüH¦KQX-FÃXÒºI΋f@ox%ƒp$3 \‰c/Ls3“m±Çò}ÚŠ¾òšanÐË«wIÕ„…ŒKÄGe,çaØ[¹BÕ¬,ÜÈÎJuŒ¡‹ï•ÑžXuÜýX ÏDˆçªÔRxEµZ›ØÒ ¶}ÞÚix¸á÷ÂM{Ž\Jb %\^ b 0ˆnUYNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ ¤‘ Æ5 Æû ÆÁ ƇMNê 0Dì0E7ï9´((((Ü9úU3333333333333333bˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆ D1 BÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ 0 LÞÞÞ 0ë**** B  0¤2 D3Ö D- ! 0K6!6! AS!ÆÔ! 0¤š" 0D># A«‚#»¥kK-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularš‚,-Œ§3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 CIGNA PPO ApxEverhartKurzwegHealthplanShockleyHealthCareLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 “Ý ƒRXQ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôº ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôð ðParticipating€Providerðð€is€defined€in€the€Agreement€as€ð ða€hospital,€a€physician€or€any€other€health€careÐ ° Ðpractitioner€or€entity€that€has€a€direct€or€indirect€contractual€arrangement€with€CIGNA€to€provide€Covered€Services.ðð€Ð tÄ Ð(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ýÝ ƒRXQ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôº ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôð ðCovered€Servicesðð€are€ð ðthose€health€care€services€provided€to€a€Participant€in€accordance€with€a€ServiceÐ ° ÐAgreement.ðð€€ð ðParticipantðð€is€defined€as€ð ðany€individual,€or€eligible€dependent€of€such€individual,€.€.€.€who€is€eligibleÐ tÄ Ðfor€Covered€Services€pursuant€to€a€Service€Agreement.ðð€€A€ð ðService€Agreementðð€is€defined€as€ð ðthose€agreements€amongÐ 8ˆ ÐCIGNA€òòò òor€a€CIGNA€Affiliateó óóó,€and€an€employer,€insurer,€labor€union,€trust€or€other€organization€or€entity,€or€anÐ üL Ðindividual,€that€specifies€services€to€be€provided€to€or€for€the€benefit€of,€or€arranged€for€or€reimbursed€to€or€for€theÐ Â Ðbenefit€of€Participants€.€.€.€.ðð€€(Emphasis€added).€€Thus,€under€the€Agreement€at€issue€in€this€case,€Urology€AssociatesÐ †Ö Ðhas€agreed€not€only€to€treat€participants€in€PPO€or€HMO€programs€administered€by€CIGNA,€but€also€to€treat€participantsÐ J š Ðin€PPO€or€HMO€programs€administered€by€any€of€CIGNAððs€affiliated€CIGNA€HealthCare€companies€throughout€theÐ  ^ ÐUnited€States.€€ åÝ ƒRXQ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôº ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Agreement€provided€that€CIGNA€ð ðmay€amend€[the]€Agreement€and€Program€Attachments€by€providingÐ ° Ðprior€written€notice€to€Physician.€€Failure€of€Physician€to€object€in€writing€to€any€such€proposed€amendment€within€thirtyÐ tÄ Ð(30)€days€following€receipt€of€notice€shall€constitute€Physicianððs€acceptance€thereof.ðð€€ ªÝ ƒRXQ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôº ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€original€Agreement€provided€for€payment€to€Urology€Associates€based€on€a€fee„for„service€arrangement,Ð ° Ðwhereby€CIGNAððs€payment€was€based€on€the€services€performed.€€Soon€after€the€original€agreement€was€signed,Ð tÄ Ðhowever,€the€parties€entered€into€an€amendment€to€the€Agreement€that€changed€the€form€of€compensation€to€a€per„Ð 8ˆ Ðmember€arrangement,€whereby€CIGNA€would€pay€Urology€Associates€a€certain€amount€per€month€for€each€memberÐ üL Ðenrolled€in€the€CIGNA€health€plan.€ò òó ó Ý ƒRXQ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôº ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔParticipants€in€these€employer„sponsored€plans€include€residents€of€Kentucky€who€are€treated€in€TennesseeÐ ° Ðby€Urology€Associates.€€ /Ý ƒRXQ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôº ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€parties€dispute€whether€these€Program€Requirements€are€a€part€of€the€Agreement€and,€therefore,€whetherÐ ° Ðthe€provisions€therein€are€binding€on€the€parties. KÝ ƒRXQ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôº ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€trial€courtððs€order€denying€the€motion€to€dismiss€or€to€stay€litigation€and€compel€arbitration€is€appealableÐ ° Ðpursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€29„5„319(a)(1).ò òòòóóó ó- ù-::)÷ÿ! dxdxüÿP Pd>ßb$Large Circleððà0 à(|G2XQ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€u»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôº ò»»Ô d(|3C$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€u»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3C$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€u»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€u»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼u»»»ÔÑ8€^™XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îuÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼u»îî #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓApril€2,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X^™X»¼uÔÌò òÔ#†¼u»XX^™ò#ÔUROLOGY€ASSOCIATES,€P.C.€Ð úJ Ðv.€Ð  ^ ÐCIGNA€HEALTHCARE€OF€TENNESSEE,€INC.,€Ð " r Ðf/k/a€CIGNA€HEALTHPLAN€OF€TENNESSEE,€INC.Ô‡X^™X»¼uÔó óÐ 6 † ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAn€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ 6†  Ðà@@øøìàNo.€00„3386„III€€€€€Ellen€Ô_ÔHobbsÔ_Ô€Lyle,€ChancellorÐ "r  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<å` AßÐ æ6  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„02252„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€October€11,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ á1 ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¸` AßÐ ¹  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThis€case€involves€the€interpretation€of€an€arbitration€agreement.€€The€plaintiff€physiciansðð€groupÐ ´ Ðprovided€medical€services€to€individuals€who€were€insured€by€the€defendant€insurance€company.€Ð  ð ÐDisputes€arose€regarding€the€insurance€companyððs€payment€to€the€physiciansðð€group€for€thoseÐ ŒÜ Ðmedical€services.€€Consequently,€the€physiciansðð€group€filed€this€lawsuit€against€the€insuranceÐ xÈ Ðcompany.€€Pursuant€to€the€partiesðð€contract,€the€insurance€company€moved€to€dismiss€or€to€stay€theÐ d´ Ðproceedings€and€to€compel€arbitration.€€The€contract€contained€a€dispute€resolution€provision€which€Ð P  Ðstated,€in€part,€that€disputes€arising€between€the€parties€ð ðÔ#†¼u»XX^™á#ÔÔ‡X^™X»¼uÔshall€be€submitted€either€to€a€disputeÐ <Œ Ðresolution€entity,€or€to€a€single€arbitrator€selected€by€the€American€Arbitration€Association,€as€theÐ (x Ðparties€shall€agree.ðð€€The€trial€court€denied€the€insurance€companyððs€motion€to€compel€arbitration,Ð d Ðdetermining€Ô#†¼u»XX^™Š#ÔÔ‡X^™X»¼uÔthat€the€dispute€resolution€provision€ð ðneither€explicitly€nor€clearlyðð€required€the€partiesÐ P Ðto€arbitrate,€and€that€the€provision€was€ð ðtoo€vague,€imprecise€and€impracticalðð€to€be€enforced.€€TheÐ ì< Ðinsurance€company€now€appeals.€€We€reverse,€concluding€that€the€provision€at€issue€requires€theÐ Ø( Ðparties€to€submit€their€disputes€to€a€third€party€for€binding€resolution€and,€thus,€constitutes€a€valid,Ð Ä  Ðenforceable€agreement€to€arbitrate.€€Ð °!  ÐÔ#†¼u»XX^™ #ÔÔ‡X^™X»¼uÔÓNÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€is€Reversed€andÐ ˆ#Ø" ÐRemandedó óÐ t$Ä# ÐòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼u»àX^™m #ÔÔ‡X^™X.¼uÔHolly€Kirby€Lillard,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòW.€Frank€Crawford,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,Ð `%° $ ÐÔ_ÔW.S.Ô_Ô,óó€and€òòDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.óó,€joined.Ð L&œ!% ÐÌGary€C.€Shockley€and€Brigid€M.€Carpenter,€Nashville,€Tennessee;€Brian€Boyle€and€Matthew€L.Ð $(t#' ÐÔ_ÔOlmsteadÔ_Ô,€Washington,€D.C.,€for€the€appellant,€CIGNA€HealthCare€of€Tennessee,€Inc.,€f/k/a€CIGNAÐ )`$( ÐHealthplan€of€Tennessee,€Inc.Ð ü)L%) ÐÌSteven€A.€Riley,€Amy€J.€Everhart,€and€Amy€C.€Kurzweg,€Nashville€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,Ð Ô+$'+ ÐUrology€Associates,€P.C.Ð À,(, ÐÓ- ÓÐ ¬-ü(-ý Ðò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼u»XX^™\ #ÔÔ‡X^™X»¼uÔÐ ° ÐÌÔ#†¼u»XX^™¦#ÔÔ‡X^™X»¼uÔÓ  ÓÓ Óà  àPlaintiff/Appellee€Urology€Associates,€Inc.€(ð ðUrology€Associatesðð),€is€a€group€of€physiciansÐ ˆØ Ðwho€practice€in€Tennessee.€€Defendant/Appellant€CIGNA€HealthCare€of€Tennessee,€Inc.,€f/k/aÐ tÄ ÐCIGNA€Healthplan€of€Tennessee€(ð ðCIGNAðð),€is€a€Tennessee€corporation€that€insures€or€administersÐ `° Ðhealth€benefits€for€employers€who€sponsor€medical€benefit€plans€for€their€employees.€€This€serviceÐ L œ Ðis€provided€through€CIGNAððs€health€maintenance€organization€(ð ðHMOðð)€products,€preferredÐ 8 ˆ Ðprovider€organization€(ð ðPPOðð)€products,€and€other€types€of€health€care€delivery€products.€€CIGNAÐ $ t Ðis€also€an€indirect€affiliate€of€a€number€of€CIGNA€HealthCare€companies€throughout€the€UnitedÐ  ` ÐStates€that€provide€similar€insurance€products.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Ô#†¼u»XX^™þ#ÔÔ‡X^™X»¼uÔÐ ü L  Ðà  àIn€July€1993,€Urology€Associates€entered€into€a€Physician€Managed€Care€Agreement€(ð ðtheÐ Ô$  ÐAgreementðð)€with€CIGNA.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Under€the€Agreement,€Urology€Associates€is€a€ð ðparticipatingÐ À  Ðprovider.ðð׃´×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€As€a€participating€provider,€Urology€Associates€agreed€to€provide€health€care€servicesÐ ¬ü  Ðto€participants€of€the€HMO,€PPO,€and€Referral€Plan€PPO€programs€of€CIGNA€and€its€CIGNAÐ ˜è  ÐHealthCare€affiliates.×ƒÈ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†¼u»XX^™(#ÔÔ‡X^™X»¼uÔ€€In€return,€CIGNA€agreed€to€pay€Urology€Associates€for€services€rendered€asÐ „Ô  Ðset€out€in€the€Agreement.€€The€Agreement€also€referred€to€three€separate€sets€of€ð ðProgramÐ pÀ ÐRequirements,ðð€one€for€each€program€in€which€Urology€Associates€agreed€to€participate€ð!ð€HMO,Ð \¬ ÐPPO,€and€Referral€Plan€PPO.׃v×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€The€ð ðProgram€RequirementsððÔ#†¼u»XX^™\#ÔÔ‡X^™X»¼uÔ€are€the€rules€and€procedures€thatÐ H˜ Ðparticipating€providers€must€follow€in€order€to€obtain€reimbursement€pursuant€to€each€program.€Ð 4„ ÐÔ#†¼u»XX^™x#ÔÔ‡X^™X»¼uÔEach€set€of€Program€Requirements€includes€a€description€of€the€ð ðutilization€managementðð€process,Ð  p Ðdefined€in€the€Agreement€as€ð ðthe€process€to€review€and€determine€whether€certain€health€careÐ ° Ðservices€provided€or€to€be€provided€to€Participants€are€in€accordance€with€Program€Requirements.ðð€Ð œì ÐGenerally,€the€utilization€management€process€is€a€review€process€by€which€CIGNA€ensures€that€itÐ ˆØ Ðpays€claims€only€when€the€participating€provider€has€followed€the€Program€Requirements.€Ð tÄ Ðà  àThe€Agreement€provided€that,€if€the€parties€had€a€dispute€arising€out€of€the€Agreement,€ò òó óÐ L œ Ðð ð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€parties€shall€resolve€[their]€complaints€or€grievances€.€.€.€in€accordance€with€the€disputeÐ 8 ˆ Ðresolution€procedures€described€in€the€applicable€Program€Requirements.ðð€€As€of€the€date€of€theÐ $ t Ðpartiesðð€original€Agreement,€the€Program€Requirements€for€the€PPO€and€Referral€Plan€PPO€programsÐ  ` Ðcontained€the€following€provision€regarding€dispute€resolution:Ð ü L  ÐÝ‚OßbÿÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚Oßb+ Ýððà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝCIGNA€and€Physician€agree€to€meet€and€confer€in€good€faith€to€resolve€anyÐ Ô$  Ðproblems€or€disputes€that€may€arise€under€this€[PPO€or€Referral€Plan€PPO]Ð À  Ðprogram.݃Oßb+ R ݌Ьü ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚OßbÿÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚Oßb!Ýððà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝIf€Physician€is€not€satisfied€with€such€resolution€and€to€the€extent€permittedÐ „Ô  Ðby€law,€the€matter€in€controversy€shall€be€submitted€either€to€a€disputeÐ pÀ Ðresolution€entity,€or€to€a€single€arbitrator€selected€by€the€American€ArbitrationÐ \¬ ÐAssociation,€as€the€parties€shall€agree€within€60€days€of€the€last€attemptedÐ H˜ Ðresolution.€€If€the€matter€is€submitted€to€arbitration,€it€shall€be€conducted€inÐ 4„ Ðaccordance€with€the€commercial€arbitration€rules€of€the€American€ArbitrationÐ  p ÐAssociation€and€shall€be€held€in€the€jurisdiction€of€Physicianððs€domicile.€Ð  \ ÐBoth€parties€expressly€covenant€and€agree€to€be€bound€by€the€decision€of€theÐ øH Ðdispute€resolution€entity€or€arbitrator€as€final€determination€of€the€matter€inÐ ä4 Ðdispute.€€Each€party€shall€assume€its€own€costs,€but€shall€share€the€cost€of€theÐ Ð  Ðresolution€entity€equally.€€Judgment€upon€the€award€rendered€by€theÐ ¼  Ðresolution€entity€may€be€entered€in€any€court€having€jurisdiction.€€The€partiesÐ ¨ø Ðagree€that€causes€of€action€for€medical€malpractice€shall€not€be€submitted€toÐ ”ä Ðarbitration.€€ÝƒOßb!¶!݌ЀÐ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝThe€Program€Requirements€for€the€HMO€program€contained€language€identical€to€the€secondÐ X ¨ Ðparagraph€of€the€PPO€and€Referral€Plan€PPO€Program€Requirements.€€The€first€paragraph€of€theÐ D!” ÐHMO€Program€Requirements,€however,€reads€as€follows:Ð 0"€  ÐÝ‚OßbÿÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚Oßb[(Ýððà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝDisputes€arising€with€respect€to€the€performance€or€interpretation€of€theÐ $X" ÐAgreement€shall€be€submitted€to€the€Medical€Director€for€review€andÐ ô$D # Ðresolution.€€If€Physician€is€not€satisfied€with€the€resolution,€Physician€mayÐ à%0!$ Ðsubmit€the€matter€to€the€National€Medical€Director,€CIGNA€Healthplan,€Inc.€Ð Ì&"% ÐThe€National€Medical€Director€or€his€designee€will€review€the€matter€andÐ ¸'#& Ðmay€seek€written€statements€from€the€Medical€Director,€Physician€and€othersÐ ¤(ô#' Ðas€appropriate.€€The€decision€of€the€National€Medical€Director€will€be€bindingÐ )à$( Ðon€Healthplan€and€Physician€if€the€resolution€is€accepted€by€Physician.€ÝƒOßb[(‚(ÝŒÐ|*Ì%)` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝThus,€all€three€sets€of€Program€Requirements€contained€the€second€paragraph,€providing€thatÐ ° Ðdisputes€ð ðshall€be€submitted€either€to€a€dispute€resolution€entity,€or€to€a€single€arbitrator.€.€.€,ðð€andÐ œì Ðstating€that,€ð ð[Ô_Ôi]fÔ_Ô€the€matter€is€submitted€to€arbitration,ðð€the€arbitration€would€be€conducted€accordingÐ ˆØ Ðto€American€Arbitration€Association€rules.€€The€paragraph€stated€further€that€the€decision€of€theÐ tÄ Ðdispute€resolution€entity€or€the€arbitrator€would€be€ð ðfinal,ðð€and€that€judgment€on€the€arbitrationÐ `° Ðaward€could€be€entered€ð ðin€any€court€having€jurisdiction.ððÐ L œ Ðà  àThe€Program€Requirements,€dated€October€1,€1991,€remained€in€effect€from€the€inceptionÐ $ t Ðof€the€contract€until€they€were€amended€in€1998€or€1999.€€On€March€30,€1999,€CIGNAÐ  ` Ðrepresentatives€wrote€a€letter€to€Urology€Associates€announcing€an€amendment€to€the€Agreement.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Рü L  ÐEnclosed€with€the€letter€were€revised€PPO€and€HMO€Program€Requirements€dated€July€1,€1998.€Ð è 8  ÐAmong€other€changes,€the€revised€Program€Requirements€eliminated€the€dispute€resolutionÐ Ô$  Ðprovisions,€but€instead€provided€that€ð ðthe€matter€in€controversy€shall€be€resolved€according€to€theÐ À  Ðdispute€resolution€procedures€set€forth€in€the€Agreement.ðð€€As€noted€above,€however,€the€AgreementÐ ¬ü  Ðdid€not€include€a€substantive€dispute€resolution€provision;€rather,€the€Agreement€stated€that€disputesÐ ˜è  Ðwould€be€resolved€according€to€the€procedures€described€in€the€applicable€Program€Requirements.€Ð „Ô  ÐThus,€each€document€referred€to€the€other€for€dispute€resolution€procedures,€and€neither€containedÐ pÀ Ðsubstantive€dispute€resolution€procedures€for€the€PPO€and€HMO€programs.€€Consequently,€theÐ \¬ Ðamendment€to€the€Agreement€had€the€effect€of€removing€the€arbitration€requirement€for€thoseÐ H˜ Ðprograms€after€the€effective€date€of€the€amendment.€€€€Ð 4„ Ðà  àOn€October€30,€2000,€Urology€Associates€filed€a€lawsuit€against€CIGNA,€alleging€thatÐ  \ ÐCIGNA€breached€the€Agreement€by€failing€to€compensate€Urology€Associates€properly€for€servicesÐ øH Ðprovided€to€the€individual€insureds.€€In€its€complaint,€Urology€Associates€included€claims€based€onÐ ä4 Ðbreach€of€contract,€breach€of€the€duty€of€good€faith€and€fair€dealing,€negligence,€and€unjustÐ Ð  Ðenrichment.€€On€December€4,€2000,€CIGNA€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€or,€in€the€alternative,€to€stayÐ ¼  Ðthe€proceedings€and€compel€arbitration€pursuant€to€the€second€paragraph€in€the€dispute€resolutionÐ ¨ø Ðprovisions€quoted€above.€€On€July€6,€2001,€CIGNA€amended€its€motion,€limiting€its€request€toÐ ”ä Ðarbitrate€only€those€claims€for€compensation€for€services€provided€before€March€30,€1999.€€In€itsÐ €Ð Ðamended€motion,€CIGNA€acknowledged€that,€ð ð[d]ue€to€the€change€in€the€Program€Requirements,Ð l¼ Ðclaims€arising€before€March€30,€1999€are€subject€to€arbitration,€while€claims€arising€subsequent€toÐ X ¨ Ðthat€date€are€not.ðð€€CIGNA€then€requested€that€the€trial€court€bifurcate€the€proceedings,€with€oneÐ D!” Ðproceeding€to€consider€claims€arising€before€March€30,€1999,€and€a€second€proceeding€to€considerÐ 0"€  Ðclaims€arising€after€March€30,€1999.€€CIGNA€requested€that€the€court€compel€arbitration€only€for€theÐ #l! Ðpre„March€30,€1999€claims.Ð $X" Ðà  àOn€August€15,€2001,€the€trial€court€held€a€hearing€on€CIGNAððs€motion€to€compel€arbitration.€Ð à%0!$ Ðâ âAfter€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€denying€CIGNAððs€motion,€concluding€that€theÐ Ì&"% Ðdispute€resolution€provisions€in€the€original€Program€Requirements€did€not€mandate€arbitration.€€TheÐ ° Ðtrial€court€reasoned:Ð œì Ðâ âà8  àà ` àAnalysis€of€the€.€.€.€text€[of€the€dispute€resolution€provision]€reveals€thatÐ tÄ Ðarbitration€is€one€of€two€alternatives€the€parties€are€required€to€agree€to€within€sixtyÐ `° Ðdays.€€That€conclusion€is€arrived€at€by€reference€to€the€first€sentence€of€the€provisionÐ L œ Ðwhich€requires€the€parties€to€agree€to€resolution€by€a€dispute€resolution€entity€orÐ 8 ˆ Ðarbitration,€and€the€second€sentence€which€contains€the€phrase,€ð ðif€the€matter€isÐ $ t Ðsubmitted€to€arbitration.ðð€€Arbitration,€then,€was€not€agreed€upon€by€the€parties€as€theÐ  ` Ðsingular€method€for€resolving€disputes€and€in€that€sense€arbitration€is€not€required.Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐThe€trial€court€acknowledged€that€some€portions€of€the€dispute€resolution€provision€indicated€thatÐ Ô$  Ðthe€parties€intended€that€some€tribunal€other€than€a€court€would€resolve€their€disputes:Ð À  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€text€of€the€provision,€however,€does€indicate€that€disputes€shall€beÐ ˜è  Ðresolved€by€a€method€other€than€a€court€proceeding.€€The€support€for€this€conclusionÐ „Ô  Ðis€the€next€to€the€last€sentence,€ð ðJudgment€upon€the€award€rendered€by€the€resolutionÐ pÀ Ðentity€may€be€entered€in€any€court€having€jurisdiction.ðð€€This€sentence€indicates€thatÐ \¬ Ðthe€resolution€entity€contemplated€by€the€first€sentence€is€something€different€fromÐ H˜ Ða€court.€€There€is€also€the€sentence€in€the€provision,€ð ðBoth€parties€expressly€covenantÐ 4„ Ðand€agree€to€be€bound€by€the€decision€of€the€dispute€resolution€entity€or€arbitrator€asÐ  p Ðòòfinalóó€determination€of€the€matter€in€the€dispute€[emphasis€added].ðð€€FinalÐ  \ Ðdetermination€implies€that€a€court€proceeding€is€not€an€option.€€When€these€twoÐ øH Ðsentences€are€considered,€it€appears,€then,€that€the€term€contained€in€the€firstÐ ä4 Ðsentence,€ð ðdispute€resolution€entity,ðð€is€something€short€of€a€court.ÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐNevertheless,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€provision,€as€a€whole,€was€ð ðimpreciseðð€and€ð ðsomewhatÐ ¨ø Ðimpractical,ðð€in€that€it€required€the€parties€to€agree€on€a€dispute€resolution€person€or€entity.€€The€trialÐ ”ä Ðcourt€observed:Ð €Ð Ðà8  àà ` àThe€Court€has€also€considered€the€imprecise,€somewhat€impractical€aspect€ofÐ X ¨ Ðthe€provision.€€The€way€the€provision€would€work€is€the€parties,€having€failed€toÐ D!” Ðagree€to€a€resolution€of€their€dispute,€are€required€to€agree€on€one€of€two€methods€toÐ 0"€  Ðresolve€the€dispute€ð!ð€an€arbitration€or€something€else€which€appears€not€to€be€a€court.Ð#l!Ð Ð  ÐUnder€that€reasoning,€the€trial€court€held:Ð ô$D # Ðà8  à[Ô_ÔT]heÔ_Ô€Court€concludes,€first,€that€the€provision€neither€explicitly€nor€clearly€requiresÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€parties€to€submit€this€dispute€to€arbitration.€€The€Court€further€concludes€that€theÐ ¸'#& Ðexpression€in€the€provision€for€something€other€than€court€resolution€of€the€partiesððÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdisputes€is€too€vague,€imprecise€and€impractical€to€quali[f]y€for€federal€andÐ )à$( Ðâ âTennessee€case€law€requiring€doubts€to€be€resolved€in€favor€of€arbitration.€€ToÐ |*Ì%) Ðcompel€arbitration€would€be€to€impose€upon€the€parties€a€procedure€for€which€theyÐ ° Ðdid€not€originally€contract.МìÐ Ð  Ðâ âThus,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€the€provision€did€not€clearly€require€arbitration;€for€this€reasonÐ tÄ Ðit€denied€CIGNAððs€motion€to€dismiss€or€to€stay€and€compel€arbitration.€€CIGNA€now€appeals€thatÐ `° Ðdecision.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†¼u»XX^™e#ÔÔ‡X^™X»¼uÔÐ L œ Ðà  àCIGNA€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€concluding€that€the€dispute€resolution€provisionÐ $ t Ðat€issue€did€not€ð ðexplicitly€nor€clearlyðð€require€the€parties€to€arbitrate€their€disputes,€and€in€finding€Ð  ` Ðthe€provision€was€too€vague€to€fall€within€the€rule€requiring€that€all€doubts€be€resolved€in€favor€ofÐ ü L  Ðarbitration.€€CIGNA€notes€that€an€arbitration€agreement,€to€be€enforceable,€need€not€contain€anyÐ è 8  Ðcertain€phraseology,€but€need€only€to€show€a€clear€intent€to€mandate€binding€dispute€resolutionÐ Ô$  Ðbefore€an€out„of„court€third€party.€€CIGNA€argues€that€an€Ô#†¼u»XX^™£L#ÔÔ‡X^™X»¼uÔarbitration€provision€is€ordinarily€notÐ À  Ðinvalid€as€being€too€vague€even€if€the€provision€fails€to€specify€who€would€arbitrate€the€dispute,Ð ¬ü  Ðwhere€the€arbitration€would€occur,€or€which€arbitration€rules€would€apply.€€Therefore,€CIGNAÐ ˜è  Ðargues,€this€Court€should€reverse€and€find€that€the€dispute€resolution€provision€compels€arbitration.Ô#†¼u»XX^™˜O#ÔÔ‡X^™X»¼uÔÐ „Ô  Ðà  àUrology€Associates,€on€the€other€hand,€maintains€that€the€trial€court€correctly€found€that€thereÐ \¬ Ðwas€no€agreement€to€arbitrate€and€argues€that€the€dispute€resolution€provision€merely€offersÐ H˜ Ðarbitration€as€an€option€for€dispute€resolution.€€Urology€Associates€also€contends€that€the€provisionÐ 4„ Ðat€issue€is€too€vague€and€imprecise€to€enforce.€€Ô#†¼u»XX^™cQ#ÔÔ‡X^™X»¼uÔÐ  p Ðà  àWe€review€the€trial€courtððs€decision€de€novo€upon€the€record,€with€a€presumption€ofÐ øH Ðcorrectness€afforded€to€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€isÐ ä4 Ðotherwise.€€ò òòòPorter€v.€Money€Tree€Fin.€Corp.óóó ó,€No.€E2001„01142„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV,€2001€Tenn.€App.Ð Ð  ÐLEXIS€873,€at€*5€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Nov.€28,€2001);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€The€trial€courtððsÐ ¼  Ðconclusions€of€law€are€reviewed€de€novo,€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€ò òòòPorteróóó ó,€2001€Tenn.Ð ¨ø ÐApp.€LEXIS€873,€at€*6.€€The€sole€issue€in€this€case€is€whether€the€trial€court€properly€interpreted€theÐ ”ä Ðdispute€resolution€provision€referenced€in€the€partiesðð€Agreement.€€The€interpretation€of€a€contractÐ €Ð Ðpresents€a€question€of€law,€reviewed€de€novo,€affording€no€presumption€of€correctness€to€the€trialÐ l¼ Ðcourtððs€interpretation.€€òòò òSee€Merrimack€Mut.€Fire€Ins.€Co.€Ô#†¼u»XX^™WS#ÔÔ‡X^™X»¼uÔv.€Battsó óóó,€59€S.W.3d€142,€147€€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð X ¨ ÐApp.€2001)Ô#†¼u»XX^™áW#ÔÔ‡X^™X»¼uÔ;ò òòò€Knaffl€v.€Douglas€Co.ó óóó,€No.€03A01„9901„CH„00006,€1999€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€699,€atÐ D!” Ð*5€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Oct.€15,€1999);€ò òòòsee€also€Carolyn€B.€Beasley€Cotton€Co.€v.€Ralphó óóó,€59€S.W.3dÐ 0"€  Ð110,€113€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000).Ô#†¼u»XX^™pX#ÔÔ‡X^™X»¼uÔÐ #l! Ðà  àCIGNA€first€argues€that€the€Federal€Arbitration€Act€(ð ðFAAðð),€which€is€applicable€toÐ ô$D # Ðarbitration€agreements€involving€interstate€commerce,€governs€this€contract€because,€among€otherÐ à%0!$ Ðthings,€some€of€the€plan€participants€are€out„of„state€residents.€€òòò òÔ#†¼u»XX^™¿Y#ÔÔ‡X^™X»¼uÔSee€óóó ó9€U.S.C.€ðð€2;€ò òòòTennessee€RiverÐ Ì&"% ÐPulp€&€Paper€Co.€v.€Eichleay€Corp.óóó ó,€637€S.W.2d€853,€858€(Tenn.€1982).€€Ô#†¼u»XX^™N[#ÔÔ‡X^™X»¼uÔUrology€Associates,€onÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€other€hand,€contends€that€this€contract€is€governed€by€the€Tennessee€Uniform€Arbitration€ActÐ ¤(ô#' Ð(ð ðTUAAðð),€because€it€involves€a€dispute€between€a€Tennessee€physicianððs€group€and€a€TennesseeÐ ° Ðinsurance€company.€€Regardless,€Urology€Associates€maintains€that€the€outcome€would€be€the€sameÐ œì Ðunder€either€body€of€law.€€The€issue€on€appeal,€however,€is€a€matter€of€contractual€interpretation.€Ð ˆØ ÐConsequently,€both€federal€and€state€cases€are€instructive,€and€we€need€not€reach€the€issue€of€whetherÐ tÄ Ðthe€FAA€or€the€TUAA€governs€this€agreement.€€òòò òSee,€e.g.,€Clanton€v.€Morgan€Keegan€&€Co.óóó ó,€1987Ð `° ÐTenn.€App.€LEXIS€3165,€at€*2„*3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Feb.€10,€1987)€(determining,€as€an€initial€matter,Ð L œ Ðthat€the€federal€substantive€law€governed€the€case).Ô#†¼u»XX^™"\#ÔÔ‡X^™X»¼uÔÐ 8 ˆ Ðà  àCIGNA€argues€on€appeal€that€the€dispute€resolution€provision€must€be€broadly€construed€inÐ  ` Ðfavor€of€arbitration,€in€accordance€with€the€strong€policy€favoring€arbitration.€€Indeed,€tÔ#†¼u»XX^™`#ÔÔ‡X^™X»¼uÔhe€Ô_ÔTUAAÔ_ÔÔ#†¼u»XX^™;a#ÔÔ‡X^™X»¼uԀРü L  Ðð ðembodies€a€legislative€policy€favoring€enforcement€of€agreements€to€arbitrate.ðð€€ò òòòBuraczynski€v.Ð è 8  ÐEyringóóó ó,€919€S.W.2d€314,€317€(Tenn.€1996);€ò òòòsee€also€Moses€H.€Cone€Memorial€Hosp.€v.€MercuryÐ Ô$  ÐConstr.€Corp.ó óóó,€460€U.S.€1,€24€(1983)€(acknowledging€the€ð ðliberal€federal€policy€favoringÐ À  Ðarbitrationðð).€€Therefore,€courts€must€give€an€arbitration€agreement€as€broad€a€construction€as€theÐ ¬ü  Ðwords€and€intentions€of€the€parties€will€allow.€€€ò òòòSee€Ô_ÔMerrimackÔ_Ôó óóó,€59€S.W.3d€at€149;€ò òòòÔ_ÔWachtelÔ_Ô€v.Ð ˜è  ÐÔ_ÔShoneyÔ_Ôððs€Inc.óóó ó,€830€S.W.2d€905,€908€€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€€This€policy,€however,€is€applied€withÐ „Ô  Ðrespect€to€the€òòscopeóó€of€an€arbitration€agreement,€not€to€the€question€of€whether€there€is€anÐ pÀ Ðenforceable€arbitration€agreement.€€ò òòòSee€Adamovic€v.€Ô_ÔMETMEÔ_Ô€Corp.óóó ó,€961€F.2d€652,€654€(7th€Cir.Ð \¬ Ð1992)€(ð ð[T]he€scales€tip€in€favor€of€arbitration€.€.€.€,€but€only€after€we€find,€as€an€initial€matter,€thatÐ H˜ Ðan€enforceable€arbitration€clause€exists.ðð);€ò òòòBangor€Hydro„Electric€Co.€v.€New€England€Tel.€&€Tel.Ð 4„ ÐCo.óóó ó,€62€F.€Supp.€2d€152,€156€n.6€(D.€Me.€1999)€(ð ð[Ô_ÔT]hisÔ_Ô€policy€[favoring€arbitration]€applies€onlyÐ  p Ðto€the€interpretation€of€the€scope€of€an€arbitration€agreement,€rather€than€to€the€question€of€whetherÐ  \ Ðsuch€an€agreement€exists€in€the€first€place.ðð).€€Here,€the€dispositive€issue€is€whether€the€partiesÐ øH Ðagreed€to€arbitrate€their€disputes.€€Thus,€the€policy€in€favor€of€enforcing€agreements€to€arbitrate€isÐ ä4 Ðinapplicable.€Ô#†¼u»XX^™¤a#ÔÔ‡X^™X»¼uԀРР Ðà  àTo€determine€whether€an€agreement€to€arbitrate€exists,€the€arbitration€provision€must€beÐ ¨ø Ðreviewed€in€the€context€of€the€entire€agreement€as€a€whole.€€ò òòòÔ#†¼u»XX^™i#ÔÔ‡X^™X»¼uÔIn€re:€Estate€of€Wyatt€(Ô_ÔEngmanÔ_Ô€v.€VistaÐ ”ä ÐFamily€of€Mut.€Funds)óóó ó,€No.€02A01„9706„PB„00132,€1998€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€595,€at€*7„*8€(Tenn.Ð €Ð ÐCt.€App.€Aug.€17,€1998).€Ô#†¼u»XX^™•j#ÔÔ‡X^™X»¼uÔ€€The€ð ð[c]ontractual€terms€should€be€given€their€ordinary€meaning€.€.€.€andÐ l¼ Ðshould€be€construed€harmoniously€to€give€effect€to€all€provisions€and€to€avoid€creating€internalÐ X ¨ Ðconflicts.ðð€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€at€*8€(quoting€ò òòòWilson€v.€Mooreóóó ó,€929€S.W.2d€367,€373€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996)€(internalÐ D!” Ðcitations€omitted)).€€As€in€other€contracts,€there€is€no€need€to€apply€rules€of€construction€when€theÐ 0"€  Ðlanguage€clearly€reveals€the€intent€of€the€partiesÔ#†¼u»XX^™Ák#ÔÔ‡X^™X»¼uÔ.€€ò òòòSee€Rebound€Care€Corp.€v.€UniversalÐ #l! ÐConstructors,€Inc.ó óóó,€No.€M1999„00868„COA„R3„CV,€2000€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€384,€at€*13€(Tenn.Ð $X" ÐCt.€App.€June€13,€2000).€€A€contract€is€ambiguous€when€it€is€fairly€susceptible€to€two€meanings.€€ò òòòSeeÐ ô$D # ÐEmpress€Health€and€Beauty€Spa,€Inc.€v.€Turneróóó ó,€503€S.W.2d€188,€190„91€(Tenn.€1973).€€The€factÐ à%0!$ Ðthat€the€parties€may€differ€as€to€their€respective€interpretations€of€the€contract€does€not€render€theÐ Ì&"% Ðcontract€ambiguous.€€ò òòòSee€Oman€Constr.€Co.€v.€Tennessee€Valley€Auth.ó óóó,€486€F.€Supp.€375€(M.D.Ð ¸'#& ÐTenn.€1979).€€To€determine€whether€a€contract€is€clear€or€ambiguous,€the€agreement€should€beÐ ¤(ô#' Ðconsidered€as€a€whole.€€ò òòòReboundóóó ó,€2000€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€384,€at€*13.€€The€overriding€goal€is€toÐ )à$( Ðascertain€the€intent€of€the€parties.Ô#†¼u»XX^™n#ÔÔ‡X^™X»¼uÔ€€ò òòòSee€West€v.€Laminite€Plastics€Mfg.€Co.ó óóó,€674€S.W.2d€310,€313Ð |*Ì%) Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984).€€Ô#†¼u»XX^™r#ÔÔ‡X^™X»¼uÔÐ h+¸&* Ðò ò€ó óÔ#†¼u»XX^™Ër#ÔÔ‡X^™X»¼uÔà  àIn€this€case,€CIGNA€contends€that€the€contract€at€issue€is€unambiguous,€and,€when€read€asÐ ° Ða€whole,€it€clearly€mandates€that€these€parties€arbitrate€their€disputes.€€CIGNA€argues€that€it€is€notÐ  ð Ðnecessary€for€an€arbitration€agreement€to€use€particular€words€or€phrases€in€order€to€be€enforceable;Ð ŒÜ Ðit€need€only€show€an€intent€to€mandate€resolution€of€disputes€by€a€third€party€other€than€a€court.€Ð xÈ Ðò òó óEven€if€the€provision€does€not€specify€who€would€arbitrate€the€dispute,€where€the€dispute€resolutionÐ d´ Ðwould€occur,€or€which€rules€apply,€the€provision€is€not€invalidated€as€too€vague€so€long€as€the€intentÐ P   Ðto€arbitrate€is€clear.€€Ô#†¼u»XX^™)s#ÔÔ‡X^™X»¼uÔ€€CIGNA€asserts€that€giving€the€parties€a€choice€between€a€ð ðdispute€resolutionÐ < Œ Ðentityðð€or€a€ð ðsingle€arbitratorðð€to€resolve€their€disputes€does€not€destroy€the€mandatory€directive€ofÐ ( x Ðthe€provision€that€ð ðthe€matter€in€controversy€òòshall€beóó€submittedðð€to€one€of€these€tribunals.€€(EmphasisÐ  d Ðadded).€€Rather,€allowing€the€parties€to€choose€a€ð ðdispute€resolution€entityðð€over€a€ð ðsingle€arbitratorððÐ  P  Ðsimply€gives€the€parties€the€flexibility€to€choose€either€an€arbitrator€or€another€entity€to€conduct€theÐ ì <  Ðarbitration,€depending€on€the€circumstances€at€the€time.€€If€the€parties€cannot€agree€on€an€arbitratorÐ Ø(  Ðor€a€dispute€resolution€entity,€the€court€can€make€that€decision€for€the€parties.€€ò òó óIndeed,€both€theÐ Ä  ÐFederal€Arbitration€Act€and€the€Ô_ÔTUAAÔ_Ô€permit€a€court€to€designate€and€appoint€an€arbitrator€orÐ °  Ðumpire€over€the€partiesðð€dispute€where€either€the€arbitration€agreement€does€not€establish€a€methodÐ œì  Ðfor€naming€the€arbitrator€or€the€parties€do€not€use€the€specified€method.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€9€U.S.C.€ðð€5;€Tenn.Ð ˆØ  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€29„5„304.Ô#†¼u»XX^™dv#ÔÔ‡X^™X»¼uÔ€€Ð tÄ Ðà  àUrology€Associates,€however,€argues€that€giving€the€parties€the€option€to€choose€a€ð ðdisputeÐ Lœ Ðresolution€entityðð€instead€of€a€ð ðsingle€arbitratorðð€undermines€CIGNAððs€claim€that€arbitration€underÐ 8ˆ Ðthe€provision€is€mandatory.€€Instead,€that€language€indicates€that€the€parties€could€choose€somethingÐ $t Ðother€than€arbitration€to€settle€their€disputes,€including€mediation,€litigation€in€court,€or€even€the€tossÐ ` Ðof€a€coin.€€Moreover,€the€second€sentence€of€the€paragraph€confirms€that€arbitration€is€merely€anÐ üL Ðoption,€inasmuch€as€it€outlines€how€the€parties€should€proceed€òòifóó€the€matter€is€submitted€toÐ è8 Ðarbitration.€€Urology€Associates€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€was€correct€in€holding€that€theÐ Ô$ Ðprovision€at€issue€is€simply€too€vague,€imprecise€and€impractical€to€enforce,€noting€that€anyÐ À Ðambiguity€should€be€construed€against€the€drafter€of€the€agreement,€namely,€CIGNA.€€€€Ô#†¼u»XX^™Â{#ÔÔ‡X^™X»¼uÔ€€Ð ¬ü Ðà  àThe€term€ð ðarbitrationðð€is€not€explicitly€defined€in€the€TUAA,€the€FAA,€or€in€the€contract€atÐ „Ô Ðissue.€€òòBlackððs€Law€Dictionaryóó€defines€arbitration€as€ð ða€method€of€dispute€resolution€involvingÐ pÀ Ðone€or€more€neutral€third€parties€who€are€usu[ally]€agreed€to€by€the€disputing€parties€and€whoseÐ \ ¬ Ðdecision€is€binding.€ð!ð€Also€termed€(redundantly)€òòbinding€arbitrationóó.ðð€€òòBlackððs€Law€DictionaryóóÐ H!˜ Ð100€(7th€ed.1999).€€This€definition€contemplates€that€any€ð ðmethod€of€dispute€resolutionðð€couldÐ 4"„  Ðconstitute€arbitration,€so€long€as€the€method€is€conducted€by€one€or€more€third€parties€and€is€bindingÐ  #p! Ðon€the€parties€to€the€contract.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€€Tennessee€cases€define€arbitration€much€the€same,€holding€thatÐ  $\" Ðarbitration€is€ð ða€consensual€proceeding€in€which€the€parties€select€decision„makers€of€their€ownÐ ø$H # Ðchoice€and€then€voluntarily€submit€their€disagreement€to€those€decision„makers€for€resolution€in€lieuÐ ä%4!$ Ðof€adjudicating€the€dispute€in€court.ðð€€ò òòòÔ_ÔMerrimackÔ_ÔÔ#†¼u»XX^™E€#ÔÔ‡X^™X»¼uÔó óóó,€59€S.W.3d€at149;€ò òòòsee€Smith€v.Ð Ð& "% ÐBridgestone/Firestone,€Inc.óóó ó,€2€S.W.3d€197,€206€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999)€(stating€that€arbitration€isÐ ¼' #& Ðð ðan€ððadjudicationðð€of€conflicting€interests€by€a€neutral€third€partyðð);€ò òòòsee€also€Ô_ÔBlountÔ_Ô€Excavating,€Inc.Ð ¨(ø#' Ðv.€Denso€Mfg.€Tenn.,€Inc.ó óóó,€No.€03A01„9903„CV„00112,€1999€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€779,€at€*10€(Tenn.Ð ”)ä$( ÐCt.€App.€Nov.€30,€1999)€(adhering€to€the€definition€in€ò òòòSmith€óóó óand€adopting€the€position€thatÐ €*Ð%) Ðarbitration€is€simply€an€agreement€to€allow€a€third€party€to€resolve€disputes).€€Ð l+¼&* Ðà  àFederal€courts€have€similarly€defined€the€term,€Ô#†¼u»XX^™c…#ÔÔ€X^™X»¼uÔstating€that€ð ðarbitration€is€the€reference€of€aÐ ° Ðparticular€dispute€to€an€impartial€third€person€chosen€by€the€parties€to€the€dispute€who€agree€inÐ œì Ðadvance€to€be€bound€by€the€award.ðð€€ò òòòGeneral€Motors€Corp.€v.€Pamela€Equities€Corp.ó óóó,€146€F.3d€242,Ð ˆØ Ð246€(5th€Cir.€1998);€ò òòòsee€also€Harrison€v.€Nissan€Motor€Corp.óóó ó,€111€F.3d€343,€350€(3d€Cir.€1997)Ð tÄ Ð(ð ð[T]he€essence€of€arbitration,€we€think,€is€that,€when€the€parties€agree€to€submit€their€disputes€to€it,Ð `° Ðthey€have€agreed€to€arbitrate€these€disputes€through€to€completion,€òòi.e.óó€to€an€award€made€by€a€third„Ð L œ Ðparty€arbitrator.ðð);€ò òòòParisi€v.€Netlearning,€Inc.óóó ó,€139€F.€Supp.€2d€745,€749€(E.D.€Va.€2001)€(statingÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€ð ðcourts€have€liberally€construed€that€term€[arbitration]€to€encompass€various€diverse€dispute„Ð $ t Ðsettlement€mechanismsðð).€€Federal€courts€have€enforced€agreements€under€the€FAA€when€somethingÐ  ` Ðother€than€ð ðarbitrationðð€is€required,€so€long€as€the€parties€have€agreed€to€submit€their€disputes€to€anÐ ü L  Ðindependent€third€party€for€final€resolution.€€ò òòòSee€Powderly€v.€Metrabyte€Corp.ó óóó,€866€F.€Supp.€39,€42Ð è 8  Ð(D.€Mass.€1994)€(stating€that€an€agreement€to€submit€disputes€to€a€public€accountant€is€anÐ Ô$  Ðenforceable€arbitration€agreement,€reasoning€that€ð ð[t]he€use€of€the€term€arbitrate€is€not€a€vitalÐ À  Ðingredient€to€an€agreement€to€do€soðð);€ò òòòsee€also€CB€Richard€Ellis,€Inc.€v.€American€Envtl.€WasteÐ ¬ü  ÐMgmt.óóó ó,€No.€98„CV„4183€(JG),€1998€U.S.€Dist.€LEXIS€20064,€at€*3„*4€(E.D.N.Y.€Dec.€4,€1998)Ð ˜è  Ð(enforcing€a€mediation€agreement€under€the€FAA,€because€it€is€a€process€that€will€ð ðsettleðð€theÐ „Ô  Ðcontroversy);€ò òòòCecala€v.€Mooreóóó ó,€982€F.€Supp.€609,€613„614€(N.D.€Ill.€1997)€(enforcing€a€mediationÐ pÀ Ðclause€under€the€state€arbitration€act).Ð \¬ Ðà  àIn€this€case,€the€dispute€resolution€provision€requires€aggrieved€physicians€to€submit€theirÐ 4„ Ðdisputes€to€a€third€party€for€resolution,€whether€it€be€a€ð ðdispute€resolution€entityðð€or€a€ð ðsingleÐ  p Ðarbitrator,ðð€and€it€compels€the€parties€to€be€bound€by€the€determination€of€that€third€party.€€WhileÐ  \ Ðthe€physician€may€choose€a€ð ðdispute€resolution€entityðð€as€opposed€to€a€ð ðsingle€arbitrator,ðð€anÐ øH Ðarbitration€agreement€need€not€contain€ð ðmagic€wordsðð€or€ð ðfollow€a€particular€form€or€phraseology.ðð€Ð ä4 Ðò òòòAMF€Inc.€v.€Brunswick€Corp.ó óóó,€621€F.€Supp.€456,€460€(Ô_ÔE.D.N.Y.Ô_Ô€1985);€ò òòòSumaza€v.€CooperativeÐ Ð  ÐÔ_ÔAssððnÔ_Ôóóó ó,€297€F.€Supp.€345,€347€(D.P.R.€1969).€€It€need€only€require€that€parties€submit€their€disputesÐ ¼  Ðto€a€third€party€for€a€decision€that€is€binding€on€the€parties.€€Therefore,€the€dispute€resolutionÐ ¨ø Ðprovision€at€issue€contains€all€of€the€elements€necessary€to€constitute€an€enforceable€agreement€toÐ ”ä Ðarbitrate.Ð €Ð Ðà  àUrology€Associates€argues€that€the€term€ð ðdispute€resolutionðð€can,€in€the€most€literal€sense,Ð X ¨ Ðmean€anything€from€a€court€to€a€toss€of€the€coin.€€From€a€reading€of€the€entire€provision,€however,Ð D!” Ðit€is€readily€apparent€that€the€parties€did€not€intend€for€a€court€to€be€a€ð ðdispute€resolution€entityðð€toÐ 0"€  Ðresolve€disputes.€€Indeed,€the€trial€court€noted€the€portion€of€the€dispute€resolution€provision€statingÐ #l! Ðthat€a€ð ð[j]udgment€upon€the€award€rendered€by€the€resolution€entity€may€be€entered€in€any€courtÐ $X" Ðhaving€jurisdiction,ðð€and€also€stating€that€ð ð[b]oth€parties€expressly€covenant€and€agree€to€be€boundÐ ô$D # Ðby€the€decision€of€the€dispute€resolution€entity€or€arbitrator€as€final€determination€of€the€matter€inÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€dispute.ðð€€We€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€observation€that€ð ð[f]inal€determination€implies€that€aÐ Ì&"% Ðcourt€proceeding€is€not€an€option.ðð€€The€dispute€resolution€provision€in€this€case,€while€hardly€aÐ ¸'#& Ðmodel€of€clarity,€overall€evidences€a€clear€intent€to€require€the€parties€to€submit€their€disputes€to€aÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthird€party€for€a€binding€decision.€€This€is€sufficient€to€conclude€that€arbitration€is€mandatory,€andÐ )à$( Ðthat€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€CIGNAððs€motion€to€compel€arbitration.€€à x àÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àCIGNA€asserts€that,€if€we€find€that€the€dispute€resolution€provision€constitutes€an€enforceableÐ ° Ðagreement€to€arbitrate,€we€should€also€address€whether€the€Program€Requirements€are€incorporatedÐ œì Ðinto€the€main€agreement,€and€whether€the€parties,€therefore,€are€bound€by€the€arbitration€provisionsÐ ˆØ Ðtherein.€€CIGNA€further€asks€this€court€to€address€whether,€under€the€common„law€doctrine€ofÐ tÄ Ðmerger,€the€amended€Program€Requirements€superceded€the€old€requirements,€rendering€the€originalÐ `° ÐProgram€Requirements€unenforceable.€€The€trial€court€below€did€not€address€these€issues,€and€weÐ L œ Ðneed€not€address€them€on€appeal.€€Rather,€we€remand€the€cause€to€the€trial€court€to€determine€theseÐ 8 ˆ Ðissues€in€the€first€instance€and€for€any€other€proceedings€necessary€in€light€of€our€holding.€€All€otherÐ $ t Ðissues€raised€by€the€parties€are€pretermitted.Ð  ` Ðà  àAccordingly,€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed€and€remanded€to€the€trial€court€toÐ è 8  Ðproceed€in€a€manner€not€inconsistent€with€this€Opinion.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellee,Ð Ô$  ÐUrology€Associates,€P.C.,€for€which€execution€may€issue,€if€necessary.€€€€Ð À  ÐÌ€€Ð pÀ ÐÓ Óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð H˜ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGE