With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding that duration of limitation is a factor in determining whether limitation is significant
B: holding that a oneyear limitation provision was unreasonable and thus unenforceable because it conflicted with the motor vehicle reparations acts twoyear limitation period
C: holding that under a severability clause arbitration provision was not rendered unenforceable because it contained an invalid limitation on punitive damages
D: holding that twoyear limitation period did not prevent trustee from relying defensively on  502d
B.