With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 342 (3d Cir.1999) (internal quotations omitted). II. Request for Declaratory Judgement In his Motion to Dismiss, Defendant argues that Hartford is collaterally estopped from seeking declaratory relief before this Court because it has acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the arbitration panel. (Def. Mot. at ¶ 14; Def. Mem. at 7). Both parties admit that the O’Maras’ insurance policy contains a valid arbitration clause; the question is whether that clause applies to .the present dispute. Based on our reading of state law and other courts’ related holdings, we find that it does. Defendant correctly points out that arbitration panels are generally given broad authority to resolve claim disputes. Brennan v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp., 524 Pa. 542, 574 A.2d 580, 583 (1990) (<HOLDING>). Hartford contends, however, that Defendant

A: holding the question of whether insurance companys requests were reasonable under policy language was a fact question
B: holding wills more specific provision prevails over general provision
C: holding that question was within arbitration provision because provision contained no specific language precluding arbitrators from reaching question
D: holding that an arbitration provision that waived class actions and thus required the consumer to pay a 125 fee to vindicate a 150 claim was substantively unconscionable but also holding that the waiver provision was severable from the remainder of the arbitration provision which would be enforced
C.