continuing harm doctrine in Maryland

2021Although we pointed out that the Maryland appellate courts had previously recognized the doctrine, we also observed that we had “not [] found a reported opinion, in either this Court or the intermediate appellate court, involving an application of the doctrine of continuing harm.” MacBride, 402 Md. at 584 n.7 (cleaned up).

2021In MacBride v. Pishvaian, 402 Md. 572 (2007), we discussed the continuing harm doctrine in the context of a suit brought by a tenant against a landlord alleging claims for unfair and deceptive trade practices, fraud, negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.

2024That said, when a plaintiff relies on the continuing harm doctrine to toll the statute of limitations, “damages for such causes of action are limited to those occurring within the three year period prior to the filing of the action.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2021To support their argument, Petitioners rely upon this Court’s application of the continuing harm doctrine in Litz v. Maryland Department of Environment, 434 Md. 623 (2013).

2021For example, in Shell Oil Co. v. Parker, 265 Md. 631, 636 (1972), this Court applied the continuing harm doctrine in holding that plaintiffs’ fraud claim 4 against the defendant was not barred by limitations.

2013The purpose of the continuing harm doctrine is to avoid punishing a plaintiff "because one or more [violations] occurred earlier in time” ... when such violations "are continuing in nature.” 402 Md. at 584 , 937 A.2d at 240 ; see, e.g., Shell Oil Co. v. Parker, 265 Md. 631, 634-36 , 291 A.2d 64, 66-67 (1972) (holding that where Plaintiffs’ harm, which had persisted for five or six years and which Plaintiffs knew about for that duration, was "continuing in nature” and their right to bring suit was “not barred by the three year Statute of Limitations for the continuing violation during the three

2021In Duke Street v. Board of Commissioners of Calvert County, the Court of Special Appeals rejected the argument that the continuing harm doctrine should apply to a constitutional takings claim arising from an allegation that the plaintiff was coerced into deeding land for a public street, explaining that, “[w]hile there may have been continuing ill effects from the original alleged violation, there was not a series of acts or course of conduct by [the defendant] that would delay the accrual of a cause of action to a later date.” 112 Md. App. 37, 52 (1996) (emphasis in original).

2020Partnership v. Board of County Commissioners of Calvert County, 112 Md.

2021For the reasons explained above, this narrow view of the accrual of these claims is inconsistent with our case law under the continuing harm doctrine. 6 In Walton v. Network Solutions, 221 Md. App. 656, 676-77 (2015), the Court of Special Appeals suggested that the holding in Litz might be so limited.

2018Id. at 676-77 , 110 A.3d 756 .

2025Nonetheless, the continuing harm doctrine requires that “‘a tortious act—not simply the continuing ill effects of prior tortious acts—fall within the limitation period[.]’” Bacon v. Arey, 203 Md.

2025Ms. Smith argued that it was “clear from the face” of Mr. Jones’s complaint that he was complaining of “the construction of the addition/extension” in 2010 and the “additional construction of a deck and upgraded fence in 2016-2017.” Ms. Smith contended that, because Mr. Jones filed the current complaint in July 2022, it was “well beyond the three-year statute of limitations.” Ms. Smith also contended that the continuing harm doctrine, which “tolls the statute of limitations in cases where there are continuous violations,” did not apply in this instance because the statute of limitations is not

2021See Finch III, 463 Md. at 606 (observing that LVNV’s collection activities were unlawful under MCALA, MCDCA and MCPA “until it obtained its license in February 2010 . . .”) (emphasis added).24 E.

2021See also Muffoletto v. Towers, 244 Md. App. 510, 528 , cert. denied, 469 Md. 276 (2020) (“the continuing harm doctrine rests on a new affirmative act”).

2021In Mattingly, the Court noted that, under the “continuation of events theory” (i.e., a continuing harm theory), “only the last [event] starts the running of the statute [of limitations].” 254 Md. at 94 .

2021Different theories abound as to how to define accrual of a cause of action: “Some courts have held the cause of action accrues when the defendant commits his wrong, others when the plaintiff discovers the wrong, and still others have held that it does not accrue until the maturation of harm.” Mattingly v. Hopkins, 254 Md. 88, 92-93 (1969). 1 See, e.g., Swam v. Upper Chesapeake Medical Center, 397 Md. 528 (2007) (judicial tolling of limitations on plaintiff’s claim in light of statutory “ambiguity regarding the appropriate forum”); Maryland Code, Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article, §5-205 (t

2013To be sure, "the discovery rule does not impede the operation of the continuing-tort doctrine[,]” Rhodes v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 657 F.Supp.2d 751, 761 (S.D.W.Va.2009), aff'd in part, appeal dismissed in part, 636 F.3d 88 (4th Cir.2011), and the continuing harm doctrine tolls the statute of limitations regardless of a potential plaintiff’s discovery of the wrong. .