of or relating to’ the subject contract.” Id. at 637. The arbitration agreement before us is of the former type. To “arise out of’ an agreement to arbitrate, a claim must have “a direct relationship to a contract’s terms and provisions” or “ ‘relate to’ the subject contract.” Jackson, 108 So.3d at 593. The factual allegations of the complaint in this case do not rely in any respect on the employment agreement between Megan Fitzpatrick and her employer. See Seifert, 750 So.2d at 641. There is no nexus between the terms and provisions of that agreement and the assault on Megan Fitzpatrick. The trial court correctly denied Club Med’s motion to compel arbitration of Megan Fitzpatrick’s personal injury claim. See e.g., Doe v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd., 657 F.3d 1204, 1214 (11th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); Jones, 583 F.3d at 241 (finding that sexual
holding that the agreement was not illusory because it was supported by consideration insofar as the employee and employer were equally bound by a promise to arbitrate disputes holding that employee of cruise line was not required to arbitrate tort claims not connected with or related to the crew agreement where she was drugged and raped while offduty holding that a predispute agreement to arbitrate securities act of 1933 claims was enforceable holding that the trial court must determine whether there was an agreement to arbitrate when the party contesting arbitration claimed she had never signed the contract or intended to be bound holding unconscionable an arbitration agreement requiring employees to arbitrate claims against the employer but not requiring the employer to arbitrate claims against the employees