6 . Pkiintiff cites the following Tennessee cases: Home Ins. Co. v. Hancock, 106 Tenn. 513, 62 S.W. 145 (1901), Fourakre v. Perry, 667 S.W.2d 483 (Tenn.App.1983), Cavalier Ins. Corp. v. Osment, 538 S.W.2d 399 (Tenn.1976), and Crumley v. Travelers Indem. Co., 225 Tenn. 667, 475 S.W.2d 654 (1972). None of these cases involve waiver of an arbitration provision based on untimely demand and prejudice. Defendant does not make an argument with respect to waiver. 7 . Plaintiff cites Central Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Lerner, 856 S.W.2d 492 (Tex.Ct.App.1993), and Transamerica Ins. Co. v. Weed, 420 So.2d 370 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982). 8 . Cotuts apply the same law to appraisal clauses and arbitration clauses. See, e.g., Meineke v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 181 Ariz. 576, 580, 892 P.2d 1365, 1369 (App.1994) (<HOLDING>) (citing Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co. v. Insurance
holding that since appraisal is analogous to arbitration  we apply principles of arbitration law to this dispute regarding an insurance policy appraisal clause holding texas arbitration act did not apply to appraisal provision in insur ance policy holding that a dispute arising out of an insurance policy was not covered by the arbitration provision in the parties separate premium payment agreement because if the party had intended to subject this dispute to the arbitration provision it could easily clearly and unequivocally have done so either by including an arbitration provision in the insurance policy itself or by adding to the above arbitration provision holding that minnesotas arbitration statutes govern appraiser decisions and appraisal awards are to be treated as arbitration awards holding that the best way to harmonize a choice of law clause and an arbitration clause is to apply the substantive case law of the named state to the entire agreement including the arbitration clause