delayed accrual rule in California

1998The rule is generally applicable to confidential or fiduciary relationships. [Citations.]” (Evans v. Eckelman (1990) 216 Cal.App.3d 1609, 1614-1615 [ 265 Cal.Rptr. 605 ].) “A close cousin of the discovery rule is the ‘well accepted principle ... of fraudulent concealment.’ [Citation.] ‘It has long been established that the defendant’s fraud in concealing a cause of action against him tolls the applicable statute of limitations, but only for that period during which the claim is undiscovered by plaintiff or until such time as plaintiff, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have disco

1998The rule is generally applicable to confidential or fiduciary relationships. [Citations.]” (Evans v. Eckelman (1990) 216 Cal.App.3d 1609, 1614-1615 [ 265 Cal.Rptr. 605 ].) “A close cousin of the discovery rule is the ‘well accepted principle ... of fraudulent concealment.’ [Citation.] ‘It has long been established that the defendant’s fraud in concealing a cause of action against him tolls the applicable statute of limitations, but only for that period during which the claim is undiscovered by plaintiff or until such time as plaintiff, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have disco

2009Asbestosis may take up to 35 years to develop from first exposure. [Citation.] To ameliorate the harsh application of the one-year statute commencing to run upon the wrongful act in cases involving latent occupational diseases, the courts . . . began to apply a `discovery rule' to section 340, subdivision (3). [Citation.] Meanwhile, with the passage of section 340.2[,] the Legislature codified a more liberal disability plus discovery rule, providing that the limitation period never commences to run for plaintiffs who know they have suffered injury or illness from asbestos exposure until `disab

2000Among other reasoning, the Court of Appeal in Nelson, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d 727 , 218 Cal.Rptr. 562 , explained that "with the passage of section 340.2, the Legislature codified a more liberal disability plus discovery rule, providing that the limitation period never commences to run for plaintiffs who know they have suffered injury or illness from asbestos exposure until `disability' has occurred. [Citation.] [¶] This delayed accrual rule is more in keeping with the gradually disabling nature of the disease.

2025Even when the breach and damage are not physically hidden, they may be beyond what the plaintiff could reasonably be expected to comprehend.’” (Parsons, supra, 31 Cal.App.4th at p. 1526 .) Parsons further recognized that “‘courts have relied on the nature of the relationship between defendant and plaintiff to explain application of the delayed accrual rule,’” and that “‘there is an underlying notion that plaintiffs should not suffer where circumstances prevent them from knowing they have been harmed.

1998The rule is generally applicable to confidential or fiduciary relationships.” (Ev ans v. Eckelman (1990) 216 Cal.App.3d 1609, 1614-1615 [ 265 Cal.Rptr. 605 ]; see Parsons v. Tickner (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1526 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 ].) In April Enterprises, Inc. v. KTTV (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 805 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 421 ], the court applied the delayed discovery rule to a breach of contract action where the breach was committed “in secret” and the harm was not reasonably discoverable by plaintiffs at the time.

1998The rule is generally applicable to confidential or fiduciary relationships.” (Ev ans v. Eckelman (1990) 216 Cal.App.3d 1609, 1614-1615 [ 265 Cal.Rptr. 605 ]; see Parsons v. Tickner (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1526 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 ].) In April Enterprises, Inc. v. KTTV (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 805 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 421 ], the court applied the delayed discovery rule to a breach of contract action where the breach was committed “in secret” and the harm was not reasonably discoverable by plaintiffs at the time.

1998The rule is generally applicable to confidential or fiduciary relationships.” (Ev ans v. Eckelman (1990) 216 Cal.App.3d 1609, 1614-1615 [ 265 Cal.Rptr. 605 ]; see Parsons v. Tickner (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1526 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 ].) In April Enterprises, Inc. v. KTTV (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 805 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 421 ], the court applied the delayed discovery rule to a breach of contract action where the breach was committed “in secret” and the harm was not reasonably discoverable by plaintiffs at the time.

1998The rule is generally applicable to confidential or fiduciary relationships. [Citations.]” (Evans v. Eckelman (1990) 216 Cal.App.3d 1609, 1614-1615 [ 265 Cal.Rptr. 605 ].) “A close cousin of the discovery rule is the ‘well accepted principle ... of fraudulent concealment.’ [Citation.] ‘It has long been established that the defendant’s fraud in concealing a cause of action against him tolls the applicable statute of limitations, but only for that period during which the claim is undiscovered by plaintiff or until such time as plaintiff, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have disco

1998The rule is generally applicable to confidential or fiduciary relationships. [Citations.]” (Evans v. Eckelman (1990) 216 Cal.App.3d 1609, 1614-1615 [ 265 Cal.Rptr. 605 ].) “A close cousin of the discovery rule is the ‘well accepted principle ... of fraudulent concealment.’ [Citation.] ‘It has long been established that the defendant’s fraud in concealing a cause of action against him tolls the applicable statute of limitations, but only for that period during which the claim is undiscovered by plaintiff or until such time as plaintiff, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have disco