Opinion ID: 2621198
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Adequacy of time

Text: Given that the court invokes a policy of ensuring an adequate opportunity for filing a claim, [63] it also seems inconsistent to find a policy violation without considering the adequacy of the time the contract specifies. The court would seemingly find a violation whenever a contract specifies a claim period shorter than the applicable statutory period, without regard to the adequacy of the time specified in the contract. The court's analysis does not differentiate between reductions of one day or eighteen months. It does not look to see whether the contractually specified period at least equals other statutory limitations periods, or the equivalent statutory limitations periods of other states. [64] Even a reduction of one day would offend the policies the court perceives. I can agree that it would violate Alaska's public policy to reduce the time for suit so greatly that it would give a claimant inadequate time to investigate a possible claim and file suit. But if the period agreed upon does not unduly interfere with filing suit, Alaska's interest does not outweigh Washington's interest in enforcing Washington contracts. Alaska has no interest in an irreducible period; at most it is interested in a period that does not unduly restrict access to the courts. Given that the one-year period agreed upon here is no shorter than the one-year period the legislature specified for certain personal actions, [65] I think Alaska's public policy does not govern the choice-of-law issue. We could not hold that Alaska's public policy of access was offended by legislation reducing the personal injury statutory period to one year. [66] The time specified in the contract was adequate. This confirms that Alaska's policy interest is much narrower than the court finds it. The court would apparently permit enforcement of the deadline upon a demonstration of prejudice. [67] But because the contract term itself requires no showing of prejudice, and because prejudice can rarely be demonstrated in any limitations case, the court is not enforcing the parties' agreement as written.