us for you or at your request....” Appellants’ Appendix at 200. Nothing in the Engagement Letter indicates that the ADR provision was intended to apply retroactively to previous services. We conclude that the pre-January 2002 disputes are clearly not covered by the Engagement Letter or its ADR provision. See, e.g., Mislenkov, 743 N.E.2d at 291 (“We are bound to resolve doubts in favor of arbitration, but Accurate Metal’s claims of pre-agreement wrongdoing do not reasonably fit within the specific language the parties used in the agreement.”)- Because these claims are so far outside the reach of the ADR provision, Appellants cannot demonstrate clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability of these issues. See, e.g., Homes By Pate, 713 N.E.2d at 308 (<HOLDING>). The trial court did not abuse its discretion
holding parties to an exculpatory clause where the parties intent is clear holding that when the contract language is unambiguous we take these words to represent the parties intent and the plain meaning of this language governs its interpretation holding that the plain language of the warranty reveals no clear intent by the parties to refer to arbitration disputes over contract duration holding that the parties choice to require arbitration for disputes which arise under a contract when the standard language was arising out of or relating to demonstrated that the parties intended the agreement to be narrow holding that the plain language of the parties contract which limited the cases eligible for submission to arbitration rendered the underlying dispute not arbitrable