reasoning that a “contractual” prescriptive period in an insurance policy was a “prescriptive period prescribed by law” and thus subject to “the laws with respect to interruption and suspension”
How later courts described this case
- reasoning that a “contractual” prescriptive period in an insurance policy was a “prescriptive period prescribed by law” and thus subject to “the laws with respect to interruption and suspension”
- noting that in American Pipe & Constr. Co., the court held that filing a class action “suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action.”
- noting that the “jurisprudence provides that statutes involving prescription are strictly construed against prescription and in favor of the obligation sought to be extinguished.”
- rejecting insurer’s argument that a “Suit Against Us” provision in an insurance policy was a “contractual” prescriptive period not subject to suspension or interruption
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CLARK, Justice,
concurring for reasons assigned by Justice Weimer.
|,I concur in the result for the reasons assigned by Justice Weimer.