basis for an actionable claim in New Jersey

2025See Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267, 272 (1973) (holding "a cause of action will be held not to accrue until the injured party discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he may have a basis for an actionable claim").

2025"Under the [discovery] rule, a claim does not accrue until the plaintiff 'discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he may have a basis for an actionable claim.'" Ibid. (quoting Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267, 272 (1973)).

2019Under the discovery rule, "the limitations clock does not commence until a plaintiff is able to discover, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, the facts that form the basis for an actionable claim against an identifiable defendant." Palisades, 230 N.J. at 435 (citing Caravaggio v. D'Agostini, 166 N.J. 237, 246 (2001)).

2019The discovery rule, which was adopted by our Supreme Court in Fernandi v. Strully, 35 N.J. 434, 450 (1961), delays accrual of a cause of action "until the injured party discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he [or she] may have a basis for an actionable claim." R.L. v. Voytac, 199 N.J. 285, 299 (2009) (quoting Lopez, 62 N.J. at 272 ). "[I]n determining [if] it is appropriate to apply the discovery rule[,] [t]he crucial inquiry is 'whether the facts presented would alert a reasonable person exercising ordinary diligence that he or she

2022Following argument, the judge rendered an oral decision granting defendants' motion, and entered a memorializing order on October 17, 2019. 3 The discovery rule delays accrual of a cause of action "'until the injured party discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he may have a basis for an actionable claim.'" R.L. v. Voytac, 199 N.J. 285, 299 (2009) (quoting Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267, 272 (1973)).

2022The discovery rule delays the accrual of a cause of action "until the injured party discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he may have a basis for an actionable claim." R.L. v. Voytac, 199 N.J. 285, 299 (2009) (quoting Lopez, 62 N.J. at 272 ).

2019The discovery rule is an equitable principle under which the accrual of a cause of action is delayed "'until the injured party discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered[,] that he [or she] may have a basis for an actionable claim.'" Viviano v. CBS, Inc., 101 N.J. 538, 546 (1986) (quoting Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267, 272 (1973)).

1999This rule shields a plaintiff from the accrual of his cause of action "`until the injured party discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he may have a basis for an actionable claim.'" Ibid. (quoting Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267, 272 , 300 A. 2d 563 (1973)).

2022"The Rule 'provides that in an appropriate case a cause of action will be held not to accrue until the injured party discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he [or she] may have a basis for an actionable claim.'" Szczuvelek v. Harborside Healthcare Woods Edge, 182 N.J. 275, 281 (2005) (quoting Lopez, 62 N.J. at 272 ).

2019The discovery rule, which was adopted by our Supreme Court in Fernandi v. Strully, 35 N.J. 434, 450 (1961), delays accrual of a cause of action "until the injured party discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he [or she] may have a basis for an actionable claim." R.L. v. Voytac, 199 N.J. 285, 299 (2009) (quoting Lopez, 62 N.J. at 272 ). "[I]n determining [if] it is appropriate to apply the discovery rule[,] [t]he crucial inquiry is 'whether the facts presented would alert a reasonable person exercising ordinary diligence that he or she

1979Under that rule, * * * in an appropriate case a cause of action will be held not to accrue until the injured party discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he may have a basis for an actionable claim. [ Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267, 272 (1973)] See, e.g., Burd v. New Jersey Telephone Co., 76 N.J. 284, 291 (1978); Moran v. Napolitano, 71 N.J. 133 (1976); Fox v. Passaic General Hospital, 71 N.J. 122 (1976); Fernandi v. Strully, 35 N.J. 434 (1961).

1978Compare the majority's restatement of the test, Ante at 293 ("in some way related") with Fox v. Passaic General Hospital, 71 N.J. 122, 124 (1976) ("discovers the existence of a malpractice cause of action"); Moran v. Napolitano, 71 N.J. 133, 134 (1976) (discussing Fox ) ("plaintiff discovers his cause of action"); Lopez v. Swyer, supra, 62 N.J. at 272, 274 ("party discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he may have a basis for an actionable claim") ("knows or has reason to know that he has a right of redress"); Farrell v. Votator Div. o

2007It provides that “ ‘in an appropriate case a cause of action will be held not to accrue until the injured party discovers, or by exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he may have a basis for an actionable claim.’ ” Burd v. New Jersey Telephone Co., 76 N.J. 284, 287 , 386 A.2d 1310 (1978) (quoting Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267, 272 , 300 A.2d 563 (1973)).

2007It provides that “ ‘in an appropriate case a cause of action will be held not to accrue until the injured party discovers, or by exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he may have a basis for an actionable claim.’ ” Burd v. New Jersey Telephone Co., 76 N.J. 284, 287 , 386 A.2d 1310 (1978) (quoting Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267, 272 , 300 A.2d 563 (1973)).

2017The court recognized that, under the discovery rule, “a cause of action will be held not to accrue until the injured party discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he may have a basis for an actionable claim,” quoting Belmont Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Geibel, 432 N.J.Super. 52, 83 , 74 A.3d 10 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 216 N.J. 366 , 80 A.3d 747 (2013).

2017The court recognized that, under the discovery rule, “a cause of action will be held not to accrue until the injured party discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he may have a basis for an actionable claim,” quoting Belmont Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Geibel, 432 N.J.Super. 52, 83 , 74 A.3d 10 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 216 N.J. 366 , 80 A.3d 747 (2013).

2021The discovery rule "provides that in an appropriate case a cause of action will be held not to accrue until the injured party discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he [or she] may have a basis for an actionable claim." Ibid. (quoting Lopez, 62 N.J. at 272 ).

2019The discovery rule, which was adopted by our Supreme Court in Fernandi v. Strully, 35 N.J. 434, 450 (1961), delays accrual of a cause of action "until the injured party discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he [or she] may have a basis for an actionable claim." R.L. v. Voytac, 199 N.J. 285, 299 (2009) (quoting Lopez, 62 N.J. at 272 ). "[I]n determining [if] it is appropriate to apply the discovery rule[,] [t]he crucial inquiry is 'whether the facts presented would alert a reasonable person exercising ordinary diligence that he or she

2021However, "not every delayed discovery will A-1437-19 15 justify the application of the rule." Cnty. of Morris v. Fauver, 153 N.J. 80, 109 (1998) (citing Lopez, 62 N.J. at 274-75 ).

2019"Because the discovery rule imposes on plaintiffs an affirmative duty to use reasonable diligence to investigate a potential cause of action, and thus bars from recovery plaintiffs who had 'reason to know' of their injuries, the discovery rule generally does not apply to contract actions." County of Morris v. Fauver, 153 N.J. 80, 110 (1988) (citation omitted).

2020N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2 states "every action at law for an injury to the person caused by the wrongful act, neglect or default of any person within this State shall be commenced within two years next after the cause of any such action shall have accrued." Generally, a cause of action will be held not to accrue until the injured party discovers, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he may have a basis for an actionable claim . . . [or] knows or has reason to know that he has a right of redress. [Lynch v. Rubacky, 85 N.J. 65, 70 (1981) (quoting Lopez v

1983Lynch v. Rubacky, 85 N.J. 65, 69-70 (1981); Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267, 272, 274 (1973).

1978Compare the majority's restatement of the test, Ante at 293 ("in some way related") with Fox v. Passaic General Hospital, 71 N.J. 122, 124 (1976) ("discovers the existence of a malpractice cause of action"); Moran v. Napolitano, 71 N.J. 133, 134 (1976) (discussing Fox ) ("plaintiff discovers his cause of action"); Lopez v. Swyer, supra, 62 N.J. at 272, 274 ("party discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he may have a basis for an actionable claim") ("knows or has reason to know that he has a right of redress"); Farrell v. Votator Div. o

1973See also, Farrell v. Votator Division of Chemetron Corporation, 62 N.J. 111, pp. 115-116 (1973). [at 566] The Lopez case again dealt with the professional liability of a medical doctor.

2019The discovery rule, which was adopted by our Supreme Court in Fernandi v. Strully, 35 N.J. 434, 450 (1961), delays accrual of a cause of action "until the injured party discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he [or she] may have a basis for an actionable claim." R.L. v. Voytac, 199 N.J. 285, 299 (2009) (quoting Lopez, 62 N.J. at 272 ). "[I]n determining [if] it is appropriate to apply the discovery rule[,] [t]he crucial inquiry is 'whether the facts presented would alert a reasonable person exercising ordinary diligence that he or she

2006We have stressed that "[t]he discovery rule is essentially a rule of equity [and that it] provides that in an appropriate case a cause of action will be held not to accrue until the injured party discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he may have a basis for an actionable claim." Ibid. (quoting Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267, 272-73 , 300 A. 2d 563 (1973) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2026Thus, a claim must be filed within six years of when a plaintiff knows "or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he [or she] may have a basis for an actionable claim." Catena v. Raytheon Co., 447 N.J.

2025"Under the [discovery] rule, a claim does not accrue until the plaintiff 'discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he may have a basis for an actionable claim.'" Ibid. (quoting Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267, 272 (1973)).

2016Optics, 155 N.J. 54, 65 (1998) ("The discovery rule delays the accrual of a cause of action until 'the injured party discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he may have a basis for an actionable claim.'" (quoting Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267, 272 (1973))).

2012“The discovery rule delays the accrual of a cause of action until ‘the injured party discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he may have a basis for an actionable claim.’ ” Id. at 66, 713 A.2d 1019 (quoting Lopez, supra, 62 N.J. at 272 , 300 A.2d 563 ).

1979Under that rule, * * * in an appropriate case a cause of action will be held not to accrue until the injured party discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he may have a basis for an actionable claim. [ Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267, 272 (1973)] See, e.g., Burd v. New Jersey Telephone Co., 76 N.J. 284, 291 (1978); Moran v. Napolitano, 71 N.J. 133 (1976); Fox v. Passaic General Hospital, 71 N.J. 122 (1976); Fernandi v. Strully, 35 N.J. 434 (1961).

1978Compare the majority's restatement of the test, Ante at 293 ("in some way related") with Fox v. Passaic General Hospital, 71 N.J. 122, 124 (1976) ("discovers the existence of a malpractice cause of action"); Moran v. Napolitano, 71 N.J. 133, 134 (1976) (discussing Fox ) ("plaintiff discovers his cause of action"); Lopez v. Swyer, supra, 62 N.J. at 272, 274 ("party discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he may have a basis for an actionable claim") ("knows or has reason to know that he has a right of redress"); Farrell v. Votator Div. o

2025Under the discovery rule, a claim does not accrue until the plaintiff "discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he [or she] may have a basis for an actionable claim." Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267, 272 (1973). "[A] professional malpractice claim accrues when: (1) the claimant suffers an injury or damages; and (2) the claimant knows or should know that its injury is attributable to the professional negligent advice." Circle Chevrolet Co. v. Gordano, Halleran & Ciesla, 142 N.J. 280, 296 (1995) (citing Grunwald, 131 N.J. at 494 ).

2016"The discovery rule is a rule of equity that ameliorates 'the often harsh and unjust results [that] flow from a rigid and automatic adherence to a strict rule of law.'" Grunwald, supra, 131 N.J. at 492 (alteration in original) (quoting Lopez, supra, 62 N.J. at 273-74 ).

2021The discovery rule delays the accrual of a claim until "the injured party discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he may have a basis for an actionable claim." McDade, 208 N.J. at 478 -79 (quoting Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267, 272 (1973)).

2021The discovery rule applies to the TCA's notice requirements, McDade v. Siazon, 208 N.J. 463, 474-75 (2011), and it may "delay[] the accrual of a cause of action until 'the injured party discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he [or she] may have a basis for an actionable claim.'" Worthy v. Kennedy Health Sys., 446 N.J.

2005This equitable doctrine tempers the harshness of statutes of limitations, which are “designed to stimulate litigants to pursue their actions diligently.” Mancuso v. Neckles, 163 N.J. 26, 29 , 747 A.2d 255 (2000).

2005This equitable doctrine tempers the harshness of statutes of limitations, which are “designed to stimulate litigants to pursue their actions diligently.” Mancuso v. Neckles, 163 N.J. 26, 29 , 747 A.2d 255 (2000).

1998“The discovery rule prevents the statute of limitations from running when injured parties reasonably are unaware that they have been injured, or, although aware of an injury, do not know that the injury is attributable to the fault of another.” Baird, supra, 155 N.J. at 66 , 713 A.2d 1019 , (citing Tevis v. Tevis, 79 N.J. 422, 432, 400 A.2d 1189 (1979)).

1998“The discovery rule prevents the statute of limitations from running when injured parties reasonably are unaware that they have been injured, or, although aware of an injury, do not know that the injury is attributable to the fault of another.” Baird, supra, 155 N.J. at 66 , 713 A.2d 1019 , (citing Tevis v. Tevis, 79 N.J. 422, 432, 400 A.2d 1189 (1979)).

1979That meaning was adumbrated by the formulation employed in both the Yerzy ( Yerzy v. Levine, 57 N.J. 234 ) and Lopez cases, supra, i.e., the cause of action accrues when "the injured party discovers * * * that he may have a basis for an actionable claim" (emphasis added) 62 N.J. at 272 .

1978Compare the majority's restatement of the test, Ante at 293 ("in some way related") with Fox v. Passaic General Hospital, 71 N.J. 122, 124 (1976) ("discovers the existence of a malpractice cause of action"); Moran v. Napolitano, 71 N.J. 133, 134 (1976) (discussing Fox ) ("plaintiff discovers his cause of action"); Lopez v. Swyer, supra, 62 N.J. at 272, 274 ("party discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he may have a basis for an actionable claim") ("knows or has reason to know that he has a right of redress"); Farrell v. Votator Div. o

2025Lopez, 62 N.J. at 272 (providing "that in an appropriate case a cause of action will be held not to accrue until the injured party discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he may have a basis for an actionable claim"); White v. Mattera, 175 N.J. 158, 168 (2003).

2025Under the discovery rule, a claim does not accrue until the plaintiff "discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he [or she] may have a basis for an actionable claim." Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267, 272 (1973). "[A] professional malpractice claim accrues when: (1) the claimant suffers an injury or damages; and (2) the claimant knows or should know that its injury is attributable to the professional negligent advice." Circle Chevrolet Co. v. Gordano, Halleran & Ciesla, 142 N.J. 280, 296 (1995) (citing Grunwald, 131 N.J. at 494 ).

2021Under the discovery rule, we have previously described the accrual date as the time which an injured party had "both of the two pieces of information that are key to the discovery rule, namely an injury and 'facts suggesting that a third party may be responsible.'" Maher v. County of Mercer, 384 N.J.

2021The discovery rule applies to the TCA's notice requirements, McDade v. Siazon, 208 N.J. 463, 474-75 (2011), and it may "delay[] the accrual of a cause of action until 'the injured party discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he [or she] may have a basis for an actionable claim.'" Worthy v. Kennedy Health Sys., 446 N.J.