may have at law or in equity. As the Shareholders argue on appeal, their claims against the Hudecs on the unconditional guarantees of payment are not arbitrable disputes for indemnification but are simply first-party claims against the Hudecs for payment. The arbitration clause applies to any claims for indemnification caused by the Purchaser’s failure to fulfill an obligation of an agreement related to the stock purchase agreement, but in this case the Shareholders are not seeking indemnification or reimbursement from the Purchaser, which is EC Highlands. Instead, they are seeking payment from the Hudecs on unconditional guarantees personally executed by the Hudecs. The arbitration clause in the stock purchase agreement does not cover this type of claim. See Tahiri, 987 So.2d at 246 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the trial court erred in granting
holding that trial court properly denied motion to compel arbitration of claims for fraud and unfair and deceptive trade practices because arbitration clause in agreement only applied to indemnification claims and there were no other arbitration clauses in agreement recognizing that in reviewing ruling on motion to compel arbitration we first determine whether party seeking arbitration established existence of arbitration agreement holding that a party seeking to compel arbitration must establish the existence of an arbitration agreement and show that the claims raised fall within the scope of that agreement 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 federal arbitration act requires piecemeal resolution when necessary to give effect to an arbitration agreement and mandates enforcement of an arbitration agreement notwithstanding the presence of other persons who are parties to the underlying dispute but not to the arbitration agreement emphasis added