¶ 30 The appellant`s final defence before arbitration is that the dispute arose before the licence agreement required arbitration.   The appellants` defense is based on the idea that the dispute concerns the creation and initial operation of First Priority`s HMO, which precedes the arbitration provision of the license agreement, rather than the manner in which the HMO has been promoted since then.   Since the applicants` defence does not concern the existence, interpretation or scope of the arbitration agreement, but the nature of the underlying dispute, that defence also belongs to the arbitrator and not to that court.  Id. (5) Did the lower court err in finding that the association does not have the right or need to apply the arbitration in accordance with the arbitration provisions contained in the licence agreements? The case is a lesson for any company that wants to gain market share, resources, recognition or patients by becoming franchisees or licensees of the owner of a well-known brand. Generally, the right to use a name and logo is granted through a franchise agreement or a trademark or service license agreement. In such agreements, the trademark owner invariably includes a variety of triggers that terminate the contract and thus the right to use the trademark. ¶ 12 As a threshold issue, we must determine which law applies to decide whether the Registrar should have forced arbitration in the dispute between Highmark and BCNEPA.   While the Chancellor applied Pennsylvania law, the appellants argue that federal or Illinois law is applicable under the choice of law provision in the BCNEPA license agreement. These terms and conditions constitute the entire agreement between you and BCBSA with respect to your use of the Site. If any part of these Terms and Conditions is held to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the remaining parts will remain in full force and effect. You acknowledge that BCBSA has relied on your consent to be legally bound by these Terms and Conditions to provide access to and use of the Site.

¶ 22 The Association`s policy on the inclusion of arbitration provisions in its licensing agreements is clear.   It wants low costs, discreet and uniform ways to resolve the disputes of its many independent licensees.   Litigation increases the cost and price of health insurance and can lead to negative publicity.   These factors affect the association and licensees as a whole, as they share a name and reputation.   The association has made it clear that it is not commenting on the final merits of the underlying dispute.   However, arbitration in a private forum is a way to stay affordable and private and get a more consistent result. ¶ 19 The Registrar argued that, because the dispute arose from BCNEPA`s alleged breach of the Joint Undertaking Agreement of 1 January 1976, the dispute settlement provisions of that agreement and not BCNEPA`s licence agreement with the association were applicable.   The Joint Venture Agreement states that “any matter and/or dispute that may arise from the performance of this Agreement shall be submitted to the Chief Executive Officers of [BCNEPA] and Blue Shield for resolution.”   Highmark`s Supplementary Brief in Support of the Motion for Binding Arbitration, Exhibit 15, Pennsylvania Blue Shield and Blue Cross of Northeastern Pennsylvania Joint Operating Agreement, p. 2 (January 1, 1976).1 However, the CEOs were unable to improve the situation on their own.   However, the agreement between BCNEPA and Blue Shield cannot contribute to undermining BCNEPA`s obligations, including its obligation to arbitrate under its license agreement.   The question therefore remains whether the dispute between BCNEPA and Blue Shield falls within the scope of the arbitration clause of BCNEPA`s licence agreement.  Smith, 687 A.2d to 1171.

 ¶ 18 The parties do not dispute that this License Agreement is a valid arbitration agreement.   Although the agreement is between BCNEPA and Association and not between BCNEPA and Highmark, Highmark is an intended third party beneficiary of the agreement.   See Gregg v. Lindsay, 437 Pa.Super. 206, 649 A.2d 935, 937 (1994) (with the conclusion that one is a third party beneficiary if the recognition of the beneficiary`s right “provokes the intention of the parties” and “the circumstances indicate that the promisor intends to grant the beneficiary the benefit of the promised service”).   Highmark can therefore enforce the arbitration agreement.   See Miller v. Allstate Ins. Co., 763 A.2d 401, 405 n. 1 (Pa.Super.2000) (stating that “the rights and limitations of a third party beneficiary in a contract are the same as those of the original contracting parties”).

  In addition, the association itself intervened in the dispute.   Although the association does not take a position on the merits, it tries to argue that the dispute should be brought before an arbitral tribunal.   Given that there is a valid arbitration agreement for the parties in this case, the only question that remains is whether this dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration provision.   Smith, 687 A.2d to 1171. Highmark`s Supplementary Brief in Support of the Motion for Binding Arbitration, Exhibit 9, BCNEPA-1/91 Association Licensing Agreement, Exhibit 5, Mediation and Mandatory Dispute Resolution (MMDR) Rules at 1. The rules of the section cited above, as well as elsewhere, refer to the resolution of all disputes without limitation of language.   In addition, the rules express the collective policy of the association and its licensees in order to avoid costly disputes. ¶ 7 In May 1997, following the formation of Highmark through the consolidation of Blue Shield and veritus, Highmark sought arbitration under the Association`s licensing agreement with BCNEPA.

  Highmark claimed that BCNEPA`s promotion of First Priority`s HMO coverage violated the Joint Undertaking Agreement of 1 January 1976.   BCNEPA responded that the Association`s licensing agreement did not require arbitration in this case. Our coverage also extends to people and employers who live, work, and travel abroad, as well as those traveling to the United States. Learn more about our international solutions and our international territorial licensees. ¶ 5 In the mid-1980s, Blue Shield and bcnepa discussed the creation of a joint health maintenance organization (HMO) in the bcnepa service area.   Unable to agree on ownership percentages, bcnepa established First Priority as a wholly-owned subsidiary in 1987 and began operations. According to Highmark, bcnepa did not actively promote first priority`s HMO until about 1992.   Until 1993, BCNEPA reportedly offered incentives to its sales agents to sell First Priority coverage instead of traditional BCNEPA/Blue Shield coverage. We receive several inquiries regarding the Blue Cross Blue Shield antitrust litigation, in which a settlement was reached on behalf of individuals and businesses who purchased health insurance provided or managed by a Blue Cross Blue Shield company.

Last October, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Companies filed a class action lawsuit with subscribers under licensing agreements within the Blue Cross and Blue Shield systems. As a result of the settlement, Blue Cross and Blue Shield have agreed to make cash payments to certain groups and individuals and to make changes to the way they work. The following individuals and groups may be considered a “member of the damages class” and may have the right to file a claim for payment: 1. The Association`s rules applicable to the arbitration referred to in the arbitration provision of the License Agreement also provide that the CEO of the complaining party shall make a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute prior to arbitration.   Highmark`s Supplementary Brief in Support of the Motion for Compulsory Arbitration, Exhibit 9, BCNEPA-Association Licensing Agreement of 1/1/91, Exhibit 5, Mediation and Mandatory Dispute Resolution Rules (MMDR) at 1. BCBSA welcomes your comments and suggestions to improve our products and services and this website. By submitting proposals, information, material or other content (collectively, the “Content”) to BCBSA, you automatically grant BCBSA the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, redistribute, transmit, perform and display such Content (in whole or in part) worldwide and/or incorporate it into other Works in any form, media or technology currently known or subsequently developed for the full duration of any rights that may exist in such Content. In addition, BCBSA is free to use the ideas, concepts, know-how, techniques and suggestions contained in the communications you send to this website for any purpose, including, but not limited to, creating and marketing products and/or services using such information. . . .