is no arbitration exception to this principle of law. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. v. U.S. Optical Frame Co., 534 So.2d 793, 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). While it does not follow that an obligation to arbitrate attaches only to the signatories, ordinary contract principles determine who will be bound by such an agreement. Id. Florida and federal courts construe the scope of arbitration provisions in favor of arbitrability. See Roe v. Amica Mutual Insurance Company, 533 So.2d 279 (Fla.1988). However, that rule of construction presupposes an arbitration agreement between the parties: The federal policy, however, does not extend to situations in which the identity of the parties who have agreed to arbitrate is unclear. See PaineWebber, Inc. v. Hartmann, 921 F.2d 507, 511 (3d Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Thus, requiring that arbitration rest on a
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 settlement agreement can be enforced as contract even when party prevents settlement from becoming judgment and holding defending party can assert defenses to contract enforcement holding that a party who has not expressly or implicitly agreed to be bound by an arbitration agreement cannot be compelled to arbitrate holding a party cannot be joined to prevent removal where no cause of action can be brought against that party holding that a court of appeals may only do so when an appeal has been raised by an existing party to the case