What is the test for a contract where the contract states that the contract does not stipulate that a contingency may occur after the contract has been signed?

It is only 'where the event is of such a character that it cannot be reasonably supposed to have been in the contemplation of the contracting parties when the contract was made that they will not be held bound by general words, which, though large enough to include, were not used with reference to the possibility of the particular contingency' which afterwards happened. Chicago, etc., Ry. v. Hoyt, 149 U.S. 14, 13 Sup.Ct. 779, 37 L.Ed. 625. Cf. Rowe v. Peabody, 207 Mass. 232, 93 N.E. 604. [269 F. 586.]