with that observation. We reach a different conclusion from Labatt in this case, because a Maryland wrongful death claim is derivative of the decedent’s claims only in the limited sense that “[t]he two actions stem from the same underlying conduct, which must have resulted in the decedent having a viable claim when she was injured.” Mummert, 435 Md. at 222, 77 A.3d 1049; see also Eagan, 347 Md. at 82, 698 A.2d 1097. FutureCare seeks additional support from other jurisdictions that have held that wrongful death beneficiaries can be compelled to arbitrate wrongful death claims based on a decedent’s arbitration agreement. Not surprisingly, those courts express rationales similar to that of the Texas court. See Briarcliff Nursing Home, Inc. v. Turcotte, 894 So.2d 661, 664-65 (Ala.2004) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted); Laizure v. Avante at
holding that decedents daughter was necessary party to maryland wrongful death action holding that executor and administratrix of estates were bound by arbitration provisions adopted by decedents because those representatives  stand  in the shoes of the decedent  in wrongful death actions holding that plaintiffs failure to prove decedents death was caused by the wrongful acts of the defendant precludes any recovery of wrongful death damages under mississippis wrongful death statute holding that executor owed no legal duty under negligence theory to decedents sons who claimed bank accounts upon her death under a right of survivorship but were not beneficiaries of any of decedents property under her will holding membership in new york stock exchange with concomitant obligation to be bound by arbitration provisions of its constitution and rules sufficient to constitute consent to arbitration of covered disputes whether or not arbitration provisions are specifically incorporated in contract