of the agreement to apply, the ambiguity here is whether the terms of the agreements apply at all to the loan contract. Because the document is ambiguous as to what accounts it purports to modify, basic rules of statutory construction lead us to conclude that the loan agreement cannot be held subject to the terms of the Regions Agreement, including the arbitration provision therein, when the ambiguities are construed against Regions as the drafter. Regions argues that finding the entire agreement inapplicable violates Prima Paint. Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395, 87 S.Ct. 1801, 18 L.Ed.2d 1270 (1967). Prima Paint held that the court “may consider only issues relating to the making and performance of the agreement to arbitrate.” Id. at 404, 87 S.Ct. 1801 (<HOLDING>). See id. at 403-04, 87 S.Ct. 1801. “[I]f the
holding that court should consider issues relating to making and performance of agreement to arbitrate holding if the claim is fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause itself  an issue that goes to the making of the agreement to arbitrate  the federal court may proceed to adjudicate it otherwise claims involving the contract generally should be decided by the arbitrator holding that as a matter of contract no party can be forced to arbitrate unless that party has entered into an agreement to do so holding that fraudulent inducement renders a contract void or voidable holding that making of agreement to arbitrate was not called into question by general allegation that entire contract was void because of fraudulent inducement