amend any of the terms and conditions of the Policies relating to the insurance afforded thereunder” does not alter our conclusion. We read this provision, by virtue of the language “relating to the insurance afforded thereunder,” to declare only that the RPA does not modify the insurance coverage afforded by the Policy. The RPA, by its own terms, modifies other aspects of the relationship between Brayman and Home. For example, it requires Brayman to pay a retrospective premium where the Policy itself does not so prescribe. We also reject the notion that this dispute is not subject to mandatory arbitration because Brayman’s breach-of-contract and bad-faith claims “arise under” the Policy rather than the RPA. See Polselli v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 126 F.3d 524, 530 (3d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Polselli does not necessarily preclude the
holding that badfaith claims under  8371 arise under insurance policies holding action did not arise under the patent laws holding that a plaintiffs claims arise under the statute that provides the federal cause of action he or she alleges holding that variable insurance policies are covered securities under slusa holding claims for negligent procurement of insurance accrued on date the insured purchased the insurance policies