holding that under the discovery rule, cause of action accrues “when the plaintiff has either actual notice of her cause of action or is deemed to be on inquiry notice because if she had met her duty to act reasonably under the circumstances in investigating matters affecting her affairs, such an investigation, if conducted, would have led to actual notice”
How later courts described this case
- holding that under the discovery rule, cause of action accrues “when the plaintiff has either actual notice of her cause of action or is deemed to be on inquiry notice because if she had met her duty to act reasonably under the circumstances in investigating matters affecting her affairs, such an investigation, if conducted, would have led to actual notice”
- explaining that “a cause of action accrues for purposes of the statute of limitations when the plaintiff has either actual notice of her cause of action or is deemed to be on inquiry notice” and that “inquiry notice is that notice which a plaintiff would have possessed after due investigation” (internal quotation marks omitted)
- stating in the context of a fraud claim that “[w]e daily entrust to judge and jury the task of assessing the bounds of reasonable conduct in every manner of human endeav- or.”
- explaining that if the area of knowledge “is one beyond the ken of the average juror (or judge), then the parties must produce expert evidence to assist them in understanding”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PER CURIAM:
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Part II of Judge RUIZ’s opinion, the concurring opinion of Judge KERN, and Part I of the opinion of Judge FERREN concurring in the judgment.