Highlight: Under the discovery rule, the statute of limitations period does not begin to run until the plaintiff knew, or with reasonable diligence should have known, of the wrongful act and the resulting injury. The focus is upon whether the plaintiff is aware of facts that would place a reasonable person on notice a potential claim exists, without regard to the plaintiff's subjective beliefs.

A breach-of-contract claim against a project architect accrued when the plaintiffs observed paint peeling "like cellophane" with no visible primer, memorialized the defect in writing, and reported it to the architect—regardless of whether they had yet identified the specification error as the specific cause.

A plausible explanation received soon after the defect observation does not negate accrual if a reasonable person would nonetheless have commenced inquiry into a potential claim.

Where the alleged wrongful act is a specification error, subsequent application of paint from that same specification extends damages rather than generating independent breaches.

Legal Disclaimer:

EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.