On November 12, 1975, Ps allegedly lost certain items of personal property in an internal heater explosion. Ps notified D of the loss on November 15, 1975, and on November 28, 1975, Ps delivered an accounting of this loss to P. On February 2, 1978, some twenty-six months later, Ps filed a complaint in assumpsit against D, alleging simply that Ps had provided D with a full accounting of their loss and that D had not reimbursed them as required by the insurance policy. D alleged that payment had been refused because appellants had 'failed to prove the losses alleged' and 'failed to adequately prove the damages alleged.' D also contends that Ps' cause of action was barred by the one-year limitation of suit clause contained in the insurance policy. Judgment on the pleadings was entered in favor of D. On reconsideration, Ps alleged that the one-year limitation of suit provision could not bar their suit because D had alleged no prejudice to itself from Ps' two-year delay. The trial court rejected this argument and again entered judgment on the pleadings for D. A unanimous panel of the Superior Court affirmed. Ps appealed.