challenges to the validity of the agreement to arbitrate, id. at 444, 126 S.Ct. 1204, which must be decided .by the trial court, id. at 445-46, 126 S.Ct. 1204; and (2) challenges to the contract as a whole, either on a ground that directly affects the entire agreement (e.g., the agreement was fraudulently induced), or on the ground that the illegality of one of the contract’s provisions renders the whole contract- invalid, id. at 444, 126 S.Ct. 1204, which should be decided by the arbitrator, id. at 445-46, 126 S.Ct. 1204. The Court, however, also identified a third type of challenge to , 78 So.3d 89, 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“[I]t is for a court, not an arbitrator, to decide in the first instance whether a party signed a contract and assented to its terms.”); Rowe, 932 So.2d at 539 (<HOLDING>); Bank of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Walker, 2014 Ark.
holding that the trial court must determine whether there was ever an agreement when the party resisting arbitration alleged that its signature was a forgery holding that once the party seeking to compel arbitration establishes the existence of an arbitration agreement and that the claims raised fall within the scope of that agreement the trial court must compel arbitration holding that the trial court must determine whether an agreement to arbitrate was reached when several contracts the subject of a class action allegedly did not contain an arbitration provision holding that the trial court must determine whether there was an agreement to arbitrate when the party contesting arbitration claimed she had never signed the contract or intended to be bound holding trial court must decide whether to compel arbitration of personal injury claim of party who was not signatory to arbitration agreement