Applying Arizona law, this decision holds: (1) An ordinary fiduciary owes no duty to warn the beneficiary about an arbitration clause in the contract between them. (2) An arbitration clause is presumed to continue to govern litigation arising from a contract even after the contract’s other provisions have terminated–unless the agreement expressly or by clear implication provides otherwise. Merely including a survival provision that lists other contract provisions but not the arbitration clause is insufficient to constitute a clear implication that the parties did not intend the arbitration clause to survive the contract’s termination. (3) An arbitration clause requiring arbitration of all disputes regarding services provided and obligations under the parties’ agreement was broad enough to encompass all of the plaintiffs’ claims, since even the tort and statutory claims arose from the defendants’ services in establishing, managing and tax accounting for captive insurance companies under the parties’ agreements. (4) Whether the parties agreed to allow class arbitration is a gateway issue, presumptively for a court to decide before compelling arbitration. (5) Merely mentioning the AAA (but not its rules) as the default arbitration administrator if the parties could not agree on a different one was not sufficient indication that the parties chose to arbitrrate under AAA rules, and so did not operate to delegate arbitrability issues to the arbitrator. (6) The arbitration clause did not mention class arbitration and so didn’t allow it. (7) The non-signatory defendants could compel arbitration under Arizona’s “alternative estoppel” doctrine since all of the plaintiffs’ claims were based on or presumed the existence of the contracts containing the arbitration clause.