Long v. Holland America Line Westours, Inc.
Alaska Supreme Court
1DissentEastaugh, Justice
A. Introduction
Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 187(2)(b) (1971), correctly applied, requires us to apply Washington law in deciding whether the one-year claims time limit specified in the parties’ written tour contract is enforceable.1 Because the time limit is en*438forceable under Washington law,2 the law the parties chose, we should enforce it. Enfore-ing it would offend no fundamental policy of Alaska, and certainly not the sole purpose of Alaska's statutes of limitations: avoidance of stale claims. The one-year time limit was legally and factually reasonable. Alaska's interests do…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. ShuteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Standard Oil Company of California v. Clyde A. PerkinsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1965
- Sun Insurance Office, Limited v. ClaySupreme Court of Florida · 1961
- O.K. Lumber Co. v. Providence Washington Insurance Co.Alaska Supreme Court · 1988
- Pedersen v. ZielskiAlaska Supreme Court · 1991
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.