for several years, the amended complaint contained “no surprises;” and that Alfes was not prejudiced by the amendment. B. The district court also correctly concluded that ECMC could properly avail itself of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(e) given that the parties’ settlement agreement states only that a claim must be “brought on or before” the contractual deadline and is otherwise silent on whether the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to allow relation back. On appeal, Alfes argues that “[w]hile the rules may grant the power to file the amended complaint, [ECMC] is without the right to file it because that right was waived by contract.” The limitations period for asserting a claim can be abridged by contract. See Cange v. Stotler & Co., 826 F.2d 581, 584-85 (7th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). But “[t]he relation back doctrine is based
holding that the plain meaning of the uim policy language was clear and not contrary to public policy holding that a reasonable contractedfor limitations period that is not contrary to public policy is generally enforceable holding that one year limitations period in insurance policy was reasonable and therefore enforceable to shorten the fifteen year statute of limitations for breach of contract holding erisas accrual date for limitations period controlled despite contrary language in policy holding contribution claim against attorney not contrary to illinois public policy