Rory v. Continental Insurance

In this case, the trial court refused to enforce the one-year contractual limitations period contained in the insurance policy issued to plaintiffs. The trial court did so because it concluded that the one-year limitations provision was “unfair,” unreasonable, and an unenforceable adhesion clause. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and defendant Continental Insurance Company (Continental) appeals.

This case raises two fundamental questions of contract law: (1) are insurance contracts subject to a standard of enforcement different from that applicable to other contracts, and (2) under what…