Cited by

¶13 This case, filed in 2017, stems from Fitzhugh’s claim that the defendants negligently submitted false information to the superior court in 2009 and that those representations “greatly damaged [his] representation of the Patels.” Fitzhugh “need not know all the facts underlying a cause of action to trigger accrual.” ¶ 32 (1998).

1 “Once an amended complaint is filed, .

¶ 32 (1998) (stating a statute of limitation begins to run when the plaintiff possesses “a minimum requisite of knowledge sufficient to identify that a wrong occurred and caused injury”).

¶10 "[D]eterminations of the time when discovery occurs and a cause of action accrues 'are usually and necessarily questions of fact for the jury.'" Walk, 202 Ariz. at 316, ¶ 23 ( ¶ 32 (1998)).

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)).

“When discovery occurs and a cause of action accrues are usually and necessarily questions of fact for the jury.” ¶ 32 (1998).

aware of the necessary facts underlying [his] cause of action.” -47, ¶ 14 (App. 6 KRESOCK v. DEPAOLI Decision of the Court 2010) ( ¶ 32 (1998)).

Although accrual is often a question of fact, ¶ 32, it may be determined as a matter of law when no genuine issue of material fact exists.

¶ 32 (1998); see also Alaface v. Nat'l Inv.

Yet, a party may not “hide behind its ignorance when reasonable investigation would have alerted it to the claim.” ELM, 226 Ariz. at 290, ¶ 12 ( ¶ 37 (1998) (explaining that plaintiffs have an affirmative duty of due diligence when investigating potential claims)).

But the plaintiff must at least possess a minimum requisite of knowledge sufficient to identify a wrong occurred and caused injury.” ¶ 12 (App. 2010) ( ¶ 32 (1998)); ¶ 9 (App. 2010) (holding that cause of action accrues when plaintiff knew or should have known that he was injured by a defendant’s negligent act) (citation omitted).

4 COOPER v. ROSS Decision of the Court ¶15 Under the discovery rule, “a cause of action does not accrue until the plaintiff knows or with reasonable diligence should know the facts underlying the cause.” ¶ 29

“The purpose of the statute of limitations is to ‘protect defendants and courts from stale claims where plaintiffs have slept on their rights.’” quoting Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Ins.

a cause of action does not accrue until the plaintiff knows or with reasonable diligence should know the facts underlying the cause [of action].” , see also Walk, , 44 P.3d at 996 ; Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Ins.

¶ 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. Prudential Ins.

¶ 37 , (plaintiffs have affirmative duty of due diligence to investigate potential claims).