rather than that a particular provision conflicts “with a mandatory provision of applicable law.” The applicability of Rule 18 in these circumstances thus presents a close question. Even though it is unclear under state law whether we should construe the language of Rule 18 in the present case to permit arbitration, Supreme Court precedent dictates that we resolve any doubts as to arbitrability “in favor of arbitration.” Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp., 460 U.S. at 24-25, 103 S.Ct. 927. Similarly, we have held recently that, when the arbitration agreement at issue includes a sever-ability provision, courts should not lightly conclude that a particular provision of an arbitration agreement taints the entire agreement. Accord Great Earth Cos. v. Simons, 288 F.3d 878, 890-91 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, we agree with the Eighth
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 holding that costsplitting provision in pep boys arbitration agreement is severable from the rest of the agreement holding that an arbitration agreement is separable from the underlying agreement holding that when agreement includes severability provision intent of the parties and policy in favor of arbitration dictate that rest of agreement should be held enforceable holding that an arbitration agreement that was invalid due to unconscionability was not enforceable