& Constr. Co., 36 Wn. App. 607, 613, 676 P.2d 545 (1984). ¶38 Fred Lind Manor argues that in Washington, “ ‘[1] imitation of actions provisions in a contract prevail over general statutes of limitations unless prohibited by statute or public policy, or unless they are unreasonable.’ ” Resp’ts’ Br. at 43 (quoting Ashburn v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 42 Wn. App. 692, 696, 713 P.2d 742, review denied, 105 Wn.2d 1016 (1986)). Fred Lind Manor is correct. ¶39 As noted, Washington courts have established that a contract’s limitations provision will “prevail over general statutes of limitations unless prohibited by statute or public policy, or unless they are unreasonable.” Ashburn, 42 Wn. App. at 696; State Ins. Co. v. Meesman, 2 Wash. 459, 463, 27 P. 77 (1891); 5 d 334, 341 (D.V.I. 2003) (<HOLDING>). The Ninth Circuit has held that even one-year
holding district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to sever numerous substantively unconscionable terms from arbitration agreement holding that a 30day limitations provision is substantively unconscionable holding that an arbitration agreement between a lender and a borrower that included a bilateral exception for claims less than 10000 was not substantively unconscionable even if one party is substantively more likely to bring small claims actions   holding that an arbitration provision that waived class actions and thus required the consumer to pay a 125 fee to vindicate a 150 claim was substantively unconscionable but also holding that the waiver provision was severable from the remainder of the arbitration provision which would be enforced holding that the arbitration provision was substantively unconscionable because it precluded the award of attorney fees which were authorized in the relevant ohio consumer protection statute