application of the discovery rule in Texas

2026See Steel, 997 S.W.2d at 223 ; KPMG Peat Marwick, 988 S.W.2d at 748 .

2025See Rhone-Poulenc, 997 S.W.2d at 222–23 (confirming non-movant bears no burden to present controverting evidence unless and until summary judgment movant conclusively establishes its right to judgment as a matter of law); Burns, 786 S.W.2d at 267–68 (reversing summary judgment where material fact issue existed as 24 to when legal malpractice was discovered, or should have been discovered in exercise of reasonable diligence).

2015The Supreme Court has limited the application of the discovery rule to cases where two elements are met: (1) the evidence of injury is “objectively verifiable,” and (2) the nature of the injury is “inherently undiscoverable.” Computer Associates Intern., Inc., 918 S.W.2d at 456 .

2008The application of the discovery rule is permitted only in “those cases where the nature of the injury incurred is inherently undiseovera-ble and the evidence of injury is objectively verifiable.” Id. at 456 .

2010Co., 211 S.W.3d 310, 313 (Tex.2006) (concluding that discovery rule did not apply to a breach of contract claim that involved a failure to procure the agreed upon insurance coverages); see also Wagner & Brown, Ltd. v. Horwood, 58 S.W.3d 732, 733, 736-37 (Tex.2001) (rejecting the application of the discovery rule to a claim by oil and gas royalty owners against their lease operator involving alleged underpayment of royalties); Little v. Smith, 943 S.W.2d 414, 422 (Tex. 1997) (rejecting discovery rule to claims against an executor, administrator, or heir for failure to seek out or find an adopte

2010Co., 211 S.W.3d 310, 313 (Tex.2006) (concluding that discovery rule did not apply to a breach of contract claim that involved a failure to procure the agreed upon insurance coverages); see also Wagner & Brown, Ltd. v. Horwood, 58 S.W.3d 732, 733, 736-37 (Tex.2001) (rejecting the application of the discovery rule to a claim by oil and gas royalty owners against their lease operator involving alleged underpayment of royalties); Little v. Smith, 943 S.W.2d 414, 422 (Tex.1997) (rejecting discovery rule to claims against an executor, administrator, or heir for failure to seek out or find an adopted

2021Pressler and the other defendants further argue that Rollins’s memory-repression theory of tolling is more accurately categorized as an invocation of the discovery rule and that the Supreme Court has already rejected the application of the discovery rule based on repressed memories in S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. 1996).

2021The Convention further argues that Rollins’s memory-repression theory of tolling is more accurately categorized as an invocation of the discovery rule and that the Supreme Court has already rejected the application of the discovery rule based on repressed memories in S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. 1996).

2014See id. at 886 .

2000HECI Exploration Company v. Neel, supra. The court in Computer Associates International, Inc. noted that the application of the discovery rule proves to be a “very limited” exception to statutes of limitation.

2007See Krohn v. Marcus Cable Assocs., L.P., 201 S.W.3d 876, 880 (Tex.App.-Waco 2006, pet. denied) (“If a plaintiff asserts the discovery rule in response to a summary judgment motion raising the statute of limitations, even though the discovery rule has not been pleaded in the plaintiffs petition, the parties will be deemed to have tried the issue by consent unless the defendant objects to the plaintiffs assertion of the discovery rule.”). 1 MLAW also contends that the discovery rule does not apply to Kizer’s claims in the district court lawsuit because, according to MLAW, limitations began to ru

2007See Krohn v. Marcus Cable Assocs., L.P., 201 S.W.3d 876, 880 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, pet. denied) (“If a plaintiff asserts the discovery rule in response to a summary judgment motion raising the statute of limitations, even though the discovery rule has not been pleaded in the plaintiff’s petition, the parties will be deemed to have tried the issue by consent unless the defendant objects to the plaintiff’s assertion of the discovery rule.”).1 1 MLAW replied to Kizer’s assertion of the application of the discovery rule arguing that the trial court should not apply the discovery rule to a claim fo

2010Co., 211 S.W.3d 310, 313 (Tex.2006) (concluding that discovery rule did not apply to a breach of contract claim that involved a failure to procure the agreed upon insurance coverages); see also Wagner & Brown, Ltd. v. Horwood, 58 S.W.3d 732, 733, 736-37 (Tex.2001) (rejecting the application of the discovery rule to a claim by oil and gas royalty owners against their lease operator involving alleged underpayment of royalties); Little v. Smith, 943 S.W.2d 414, 422 (Tex. 1997) (rejecting discovery rule to claims against an executor, administrator, or heir for failure to seek out or find an adopte

2010Co., 211 S.W.3d 310, 313 (Tex.2006) (concluding that discovery rule did not apply to a breach of contract claim that involved a failure to procure the agreed upon insurance coverages); see also Wagner & Brown, Ltd. v. Horwood, 58 S.W.3d 732, 733, 736-37 (Tex.2001) (rejecting the application of the discovery rule to a claim by oil and gas royalty owners against their lease operator involving alleged underpayment of royalties); Little v. Smith, 943 S.W.2d 414, 422 (Tex.1997) (rejecting discovery rule to claims against an executor, administrator, or heir for failure to seek out or find an adopted

2016See Childs, 974 S.W.2d at 40 .

2014See, e.g., Childs v. Haussecker, 974 S.W.2d 31, 44 (Tex.1998) (stating that the application of the discovery rule to the statute of limitations usually entails questions for the trier of fact); Tex. State Bd. of Dental Examiners v. Brown, 281 S.W.3d 692, 708 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2009, pet. denied) (stating that whether res judicata applies in a given instance may be a mixed question of law and fact).

2025A fraud claim accrues on the date the fraud is perpetrated, i.e., when the defendant makes the allegedly false representation, see Exxon Corp. v. Emerald Oil & Gas Co., 348 S.W.3d 194, 216 (Tex. 2011), and a conspiracy claim shares the accrual date of the underlying wrong, see Agar Corp. v. Electro Cirs., Int’l, LLC, 580 S.W.3d 136 , 144 (Tex. 2019).

2015See id. (not reaching question of whether fraudulent concealment or discovery rule tolled limitations where plaintiffs had actual knowledge of alleged wrongful conduct more than two years prior to filing suit).

2016See Hixon v. Tyco Int’l, Ltd., No. 01-04-01109-CV, 2006 WL 3095326 , at 12 *8 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 31, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“‘Serious problems’ and complaints about those problems generally end the application of the discovery rule because complaints compel the conclusion that the complaining party is aware of a defect.”) (citing Bayou Bend, 866 S.W.2d at 743 ).

2016See Hixon v. Tyco Int'l, Ltd., No. 01-04-01109-CV, 2006 WL 3095326 , at *8 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 31, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“ ‘Serious problems’ and complaints about those problems generally end the application of the discovery rule because complaints compel the conclusion that the complaining party is aware of a defect.”) (citing Bayou Bend, 866 S.W.2d at 743 ).

2014See generally id.

2014See generally id.

2013Parker v. Parker, 897 S.W.2d 918, 929 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995), disapproved of on other grounds, Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Eng’rs and Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 47 (Tex. 1998); see generally Murray v. O & A Express, Inc., 630 S.W.2d 633, 636-37 (Tex. 1982).

2002Parker v. Parker, 897 S.W.2d 918, 929 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1995), overruled on other grounds, Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Engineers and Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41 (Tex.1998).

2010The court noted the supreme court's "efforts to confine the application of the discovery rule," id., citing Murphy v. Campbell, 964 S.W.2d 265, 271 (Tex.1997), for the proposition that "an action accrues, not when injury becomes certain, but when the claimant should know of the injury.” Advent Trust, 12 S.W.3d at 540 .

2007See Murphy v. Campbell, 964 S.W.2d 265, 270 (Tex. 1997) (stating that “[a] person suffers legal injury from faulty professional advice when the advice is taken”).

2003Because we find the discovery *486 rule does not apply to the TTCA notice provision, we overrule appellants’ points of error. 952 S.W.2d at 56 (citations omitted).

2001Despite the effect on appellants’ special situation, we have no alternative but to defer to the legislature for any statutory changes designed to permit the application of the discovery rule [to the notice provision of the Act], Streetman, 952 S.W.2d at 56 (citations omitted).

1996Morrison v. Chan, 699 S.W.2d 205, 208 (Tex.1985).

1991Morrison v. Chan, 699 S.W.2d 205, 208 (Tex.1985).

2007This Court upheld the application of the discovery rule to toll the running of limitations, reasoning that ordinary laypersons could not detect any problems with the engineering firm’s services until “flooding occurred and the damage to the buildings became manifest.” Id. at 423 .

2007This Court upheld the application of the discovery rule to toll the running of limitations, reasoning that ordinary laypersons could not detect any problems with the engineering firm's services until "flooding occurred and the damage to the buildings became manifest." Id. at 423 .

2010Co., 211 S.W.3d 310, 313 (Tex.2006) (concluding that discovery rule did not apply to a breach of contract claim that involved a failure to procure the agreed upon insurance coverages); see also Wagner & Brown, Ltd. v. Horwood, 58 S.W.3d 732, 733, 736-37 (Tex.2001) (rejecting the application of the discovery rule to a claim by oil and gas royalty owners against their lease operator involving alleged underpayment of royalties); Little v. Smith, 943 S.W.2d 414, 422 (Tex. 1997) (rejecting discovery rule to claims against an executor, administrator, or heir for failure to seek out or find an adopte

2010Co., 211 S.W.3d 310, 313 (Tex.2006) (concluding that discovery rule did not apply to a breach of contract claim that involved a failure to procure the agreed upon insurance coverages); see also Wagner & Brown, Ltd. v. Horwood, 58 S.W.3d 732, 733, 736-37 (Tex.2001) (rejecting the application of the discovery rule to a claim by oil and gas royalty owners against their lease operator involving alleged underpayment of royalties); Little v. Smith, 943 S.W.2d 414, 422 (Tex.1997) (rejecting discovery rule to claims against an executor, administrator, or heir for failure to seek out or find an adopted

2024See In re Springs Condos., 2021 WL 5814292 , at *3 (limitations period accrued when claimant “had knowledge of her injury, the date that she and her physician reviewed [sic] her diagnosis to exposure to mold and [sic] was provided with the kit to test for mold in her apartment.”); Pirtle v. Kahn, 177 S.W.3d 567, 573 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet denied) (plaintiff’s cause of action accrued when she found a leak, saw mold, and drew inference mold caused her illness).

2019Whether Shah’s claims have a two-year or four-year limitations period, Remels was required to conclusively negate the application of the discovery rule. 19 the likelihood that it was caused by the wrongful acts of another.”4 See Pirtle, 177 S.W.3d at 571 ; accord Glassdoor, 2019 WL 321934 , at *5; Schlumberger Tech., 544 S.W.3d at 834 (citing S.V., 933 S.W.2d at 4 ); KPMG Peat Marwick, 988 S.W.2d at 748 ; Kingsbury, 2015 WL 1457538 , at *6.

2013Parker v. Parker, 897 S.W.2d 918, 929 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995), disapproved of on other grounds, Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Eng’rs and Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 47 (Tex. 1998); see generally Murray v. O & A Express, Inc., 630 S.W.2d 633, 636-37 (Tex. 1982).

2002Parker v. Parker, 897 S.W.2d 918, 929 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1995), overruled on other grounds, Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Engineers and Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41 (Tex.1998).

2026Id. at 701 (footnotes omitted).

2025See Kizer v. Meyer, Lytton, Alen & Whitaker, Inc., 228 S.W.3d 384, 389 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, no pet.).

2025Id. at 389 (citing Thomson v. Espey Huston & Assocs., 899 S.W.2d 415, 423 (Tex. App.—Austin 1995, no writ)) (confirming discovery rule applied where real estate developer could not detect drainage system design defects until “flooding . . . and damage to the buildings became manifest”).

2025Id. (quoting Lewey, 31 A. at 263 ) (emphasis added); cf., Archer, 566 S.W.3d at 292 (confirming those considerations which favor the application of the discovery rule include “ensuring claims are not barred before a party even knows he is injured . . . .”).

2022“Waiver and estoppel do not apply, however, when a trial court renders a judgment it has no power to render.” In re Sensitive Care Inc., 28 S.W.3d 35, 38 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, no pet.) (orig. proceeding).

2022See Estate of Jobe v. Berry, 428 S.W.3d 888, 898-99 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014, no pet.) (explaining the application of the discovery rule).

2021See Murray v. San Jacinto Agency, Inc., 800 S.W.2d 826, 828 (Tex. 1990).