and well-reasoned, we forego following its path and instead concur more with the Svedala Court’s reasoning. In light of the breadth of the arbitration provision at issue here, as well as the federal policy counseling that doubts be construed in favor of arbitration, the District Court should have held this dispute arbitrable. That the RPA says “[n]othing in this Agreement shall modify, alter, o lusion that Bray-man’s claims also relate sufficiently to the RPA that they are swept into the RPA’s broad arbitration clause. “If the allegations underlying the claims ‘touch matters’ covered by [an arbitration clause in a contract], then those claims must be arbitrated, whatever the legal labels attached to them.” Genesco, Inc. v. T. Kakiuchi & Co., Inc., 815 F.2d 840, 846 (2d Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Finally, we note that there is no language in
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 claims against a broker under the securities laws and rico were subject to arbitration pursuant to a provision requiring the arbitration of any dispute relating to the customers accounts holding civil rico and robinsonpatman act claims subject to arbitration based on an arbitration provision in salesconfirmation forms holding claims based on the fair labor standards act subject to arbitration holding claims based on title vii subject to arbitration