Frost v. ADT

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2020 · Contracts

Contractscontractual limitations periodone-year suit limitationalarm monitoring contractunconscionabilityadhesion contractwrongful deathderivative claim

Facts

Elizabeth Frost died after an accidental house fire in her home while ADT was providing monitoring services under a Residential Alarm System and Services Agreement. ADT received several alerts, attempted to call Frost and her backup contact multiple times without success, and then cleared the alarms without contacting emergency services. Frost's estate administrator and her minor heir later sued, relying in part on statements on ADT's website that emergency responders would be notified if ADT could not reach the customer. The written contract, however, contained a one-year suit-limitation clause, liability-limiting provisions, and an integration clause disclaiming reliance on representations outside the contract.

Issue

Whether the contract's one-year suit-limitation provision was valid, enforceable, and applicable to the claims asserted against ADT, including the minor heir's wrongful death claim, so that the complaint filed more than one year after accrual was time-barred. The court also considered whether the defense could be resolved on a motion to dismiss and whether tolling or public policy defeated enforcement.

Rule

Under Kansas law, parties generally may contractually shorten the time for bringing claims, and such a suit-limitation provision is enforceable unless it is unconscionable or violates a strongly held Kansas public policy. A wrongful death claim under K.S.A. § 60-1901 is derivative of the decedent's rights, so contractual limitations affecting the decedent's ability to sue also bind the wrongful death claimant. Where the complaint and the central, undisputed contract show on their face that the claims are untimely, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Wichita, Nora Bennett signed a home-monitoring agreement with Prairie Shield Monitoring, a fictional company, for $34 per month. The agreement stated in bold capital letters on the first page that any claim arising out of the contract, the system, or the services, whether based on contract, negligence, or otherwise, had to be filed within one year after accrual. After Prairie Shield allegedly mishandled an alarm event, Nora sued 18 months later for negligence and breach of contract.

Under Kansas law as applied by the majority opinion, what is the strongest argument for Prairie Shield that Nora's suit should be dismissed?

Explanation. Kansas law generally permits parties to contract for a shorter limitations period, and the majority enforced a one-year clause covering claims arising out of the contract, system, or services whether framed in contract, negligence, or otherwise. The court did not say all such clauses are automatically valid, only that they are enforceable unless unconscionable or contrary to a strongly held Kansas public policy. It also did not hold that negligence claims can never coexist with contracts in all settings, only that tort theories could not evade the agreed allocation of duties here. (Derived from Frost v. ADT (n.d.).)