there is a dearth of case law evaluating the validity of contractual provisions in light of KRS § 304.14-370. Kentucky courts have skirted the accrual issue, focusing instead on whether KRS § 304.14-370 conflicts with other statutes of limitation. See Webb v. Ky. Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 577 S.W.2d 17 (Ky.App.1978) (finding that a one-year limitation provision did not conflict with the general fifteen-year statute of limitations for actions on written contracts); Hale v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Ky., 862 S.W.2d 905, 907 (Ky.App.1993) (considering whether a one-year limitation in a group health insurance policy conflicted with “the three-year period required of blanket policies in KRS § 304.18-070(7)”); Elkins v. Ky. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 844 S.W.2d 423, 425 (Ky.App.1992) (<HOLDING>). Only two federal cases have evaluated
holding that under a severability clause arbitration provision was not rendered unenforceable because it contained an invalid limitation on punitive damages holding that duration of limitation is a factor in determining whether limitation is significant holding that a oneyear limitation provision was unreasonable and thus unenforceable because it conflicted with the motor vehicle reparations acts twoyear limitation period holding that twoyear limitation period did not prevent trustee from relying defensively on  502d holding that the discovery rule within mcl 6005838a2 is an alternative to the other periods of limitation and it is itself a period of limitation