[brief] Agreement to arbitrate; validity a.  An agreement contained in a record to submit to arbitration any existing or subsequent controversy arising between the parties to the agreement is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable except upon a ground that exists at law or in equity for the revocation of a contract.  b.  The court shall decide whether an agreement to arbitrate exists or a controversy is subject to an agreement to arbitrate.  c.  An arbitrator shall decide whether a condition precedent to arbitrability has been fulfilled and whether a contract containing a valid agreement to arbitrate is enforceable.  d.  If a party to a judicial proceeding challenges the existence of, or claims that a controversy is not subject to, an agreement to arbitrate, the arbitration proceeding may continue pending final resolution of the issue by the court, unless the court otherwise orders.  Because an agreement to arbitrate is a contract, only those issues may be arbitrated which the parties have agreed shall be.  *Waskevich v. Herold Law, P.A.*, 431 N.J.Super. 293, 298 (App.Div. 2013).  The authority of the arbitrators arises solely out of the med-pay subrogation arbitration agreement and can only be limited to those cases which fall within the agreement.  If a dispute is excluded from the scope of the agreement, then the arbitrator is without authority to act upon it.  It is generally held that the duty to arbitrate and the scope of the arbitration are dependent upon the terms of the agreement.  *Singer v. Commodities Corp.*, 292 N.J.Super. 391, 402 (App.Div.1996) (quoting *Cohen v. [...] Ins. Co.*, 231 N.J.Super. 97, 100-01, (App.Div.), certif. denied, 117 N.J. 87 (1989)).  The powers of the arbitrator are limited by the agreement of the parties and the arbitrator may not exceed the scope of the powers granted to him/her by the agreement.  *Kimm v. Blisset, LLC*, 388 N.J.Super. 14, 25 (App.Div. 2006), cert. denied 189 N.J. 478, citing *High Voltage Engineering Corp. v. Pride Solvents & Chem. Co. of N.J., Inc.*, 326 N.J.Super. 356, 361-62, (App.Div.1999).  In the present matter, it is clear that the Med-Pay Subrogation Arbitration Agreement did not apply to matter arising in jurisdictions where med-pay subrogation is prohibited.  Such is not an issue of condition precedent, as suggested by [...].  Rather, it requires the determination of whether the dispute falls within the clear language of the agreement and as such, is a judicial interpretation rather than one for the arbitrator.  See Muhammad v. County Bank of Rehoboth Beach Delaware, 189 N.J. 1 (2006), cert. denied 127 S.Ct. 2032, 549 U.S. 1338, on remand 2007 WL 6449326.  Here, the Med-Pay Subrogation Arbitration Agreement included specific exclusions to the agreement to arbitrate, one of which was whether med-pay subrogation was prohibited in the jurisdiction in question.  Thus, by its express language, the Agreement did not extend to disputes over med-pay which arose in jurisdictions where med-pay subrogation was prohibited.  Contrary to the arguments advanced on behalf of [...], this is not a question of a condition precedent but rather, a question of whether a dispute (or in this case, multiple disputes) are excluded based on the clear language of the Agreement.  Moreover, because med-pay subrogation is prohibited in New Jersey, the balance of [...]’s arguments must fail.  Since med-pay subrogation is prohibited in New Jersey, then the subject disputes were not within the scope of the Med-Pay Subrogation Arbitration Agreement.  The various arbitrators acted outside of the scope of their authority because they have no authority to decide matters outside of the scope of the Agreement.  POINT III