Ark. Code Ann. § 23-17-237 (2026)
Limitation of actions
No suit shall be brought against any telecommunications company or cooperative by the reason of the installation, use, or maintenance of telecommunications lines, poles, equipment, or fixtures on any real property, or within any right-of-way of any public way, unless it is commenced within two (2) years after the cause of action has accrued.
History. Acts 1951, No. 51, § 36; A.S.A. 1947, § 77-1636; Acts 1989, No. 437, § 23; 1997, No. 316, § 14; 1999, No. 946, § 14.
Amendments. The 1997 amendment inserted “installation or.”
The 1999 amendment inserted “use.”
Case Notes
Constitutionality.
Constitutionality of section sustained. Core v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 847 F.2d 497 (8th Cir. 1988).
Applicability.
The limitation of this section applies to actions against privately owned telephone companies as well as to those against telephone cooperatives. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Poindexter, 245 Ark. 624, 433 S.W.2d 833 (1968).
This section clearly applies to suits arising from maintenance of existing telephone facilities, but not to a suit based upon an alleged trespass for the purpose of installing an underground cable. Mabry v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 270 Ark. 845, 606 S.W.2d 373 (Ct. App. 1980).
Accrual of Action.
An action against a telephone company for laying and maintaining a buried cable across plaintiff's land accrued when the cable was installed where the evidence showed that the location of the cable was marked by three signs and that any purchaser examining the land would have discovered them. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Poindexter, 245 Ark. 624, 433 S.W.2d 833 (1968).
Duty to Detect.
Ignorance of the boundaries of plaintiff's property did not act to toll the statute of limitations to the detriment of the telephone company whose underground cable was clearly marked and its presence known to the complaining parties. The law imposes a duty upon a purchaser of property to diligently determine the boundaries of his property so as to detect any possible encroachment by entities such as the telephone company. Core v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 673 F. Supp. 974 (W.D. Ark. 1987), aff'd, 847 F.2d 497 (8th Cir. 1988).
Cited: International Paper Co. v. MCI Worldcom Network Servs., 202 F. Supp. 2d 895 (W.D. Ark. 2002).