Cited by

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

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

Under the discovery rule, “[a] plaintiff need *182 not know all the facts underlying a cause of action to trigger accrual[,][b]ut the plaintiff must at least possess a minimum requisite of knowledge sufficient to identify that a wrong occurred and caused injury.” ¶ 32 , (citation omitted).

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 , ).

And “[w]hen discovery occurs and a cause of action accrues are usually and necessarily questions of fact for the jury.”

§ 12-821.01 should be interpreted to attribute to Long knowledge that reasonable inquiry on his part would have disclosed, “[w]hen discovery occurs and a cause of action accrues are usually and necessarily questions of fact for the jury.” ¶ 32 , (citing Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Ins.

at 591, 898 P.2d at 969.3 ¶22 P.2d 951 (1998).

The limitations period under § 12-542 “begins to run upon accrual,” , which requires not only an alleged “wrong” but also injury.