Cited by

Although a plaintiff need not know all the facts to trigger accrual, he or she “must at least possess a minimum requisite of knowledge sufficient to identify that a wrong occurred and caused injury.” ¶ 22 (2002) ( ¶ 32 (1998) (emphasis added) (citations omitted)).

¶14 Wilson, counters that because Drake fraudulently concealed the cause of action, the statute of limitations is tolled until the claim is actually discovered.

¶ 23 (2002) (quoting Doe, 191 Ariz. at 324, ¶ 36).

Although knowledge of all the underlying facts is not necessary, the plaintiff “must at least possess a minimum requisite of knowledge sufficient to identify that a wrong occurred and caused injury.” ¶ 22 (2002) (citation omitted).

¶ 34 (2002) (holding that a statute of limitations for malpractice was tolled by the defendant’s fraudulent concealment of the facts until the plaintiff knew or should have known of the concealed facts).6 ¶18 That is the case here.

See, e.g., Walk v. Ring, 202 Ariz. 310, 315-16 ¶¶ 20-23, -96 (2002).

¶ 17 , (“[I]t is often the rule that in such eases the question of accrual is for the jury.”); , (“[Determination of a claim’s accrual date usually is a question of fact----”); , 629

¶ 11 , our supreme court stated that for a cause of action to accrue, “it is not enough that a plaintiff comprehends a ‘what’; there must also be reason to connect the “what’ to a particular “who’ in such a way that a reasonable person would be on notice to investigate whether the injury migh

¶ 23 , (stating that "determinations of the time when discovery occurs and a cause of action accrues `are usually and necessarily questions of fact for the jury'" ( ¶ 32 , )); accord Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudenti

The discovery rule tolls limitations "until the plaintiff possesses a minimum knowledge sufficient to recognize that a `wrong occurred and caused injury.'" ¶ 57 , ( ¶ 22 , ).

The relevant inquiry is when did a plaintiffs “ ‘knowledge, understanding, and acceptance in the aggregate provide[ ] sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action.’”

4 See, ¶¶ 34-37 , Certainteed Corp. v. United Pac.

Under this rule, the statute does not begin to run until the plaintiff possesses a minimum knowledge sufficient to recognize that “a wrong occurred and caused injury.” ¶ 22 , ( ¶ 32 , ).

See also In re McDonnell’s Estate, *108 , (difference between actual and constructive fraud is that former requires actual intent to deceive while other is characterized as breach of a duty actionable irrespective of moral guilt and arising out of a confidential relationship); , ¶ 35 and n. 6, , 999 and n. 6 (2002) (breach of fiduciary duty by fraudulently concealing treatment errors tolls statute of limitations until concealment is discovered or reasonably should be discovered or presumably unt

But this argument conflates the “discovery” rule for tolling the statute of limitations — under which the statute does not begin to run until a plaintiff could reasonably have discovered the identity of a responsible defendant, see Walk v. Ring, 202 Ariz. 310, 315-16 ¶¶ 20-23, -96 (2002) — with the mistake requirement of Rule 15(c)(2).

§ 12- 542; P.3d 990 (2002).

¶ 30, (finding that determination of when cause of action accrues is ordinarily a question of fact).