Merchants Paper Co. v. Newton

"Under the discovery rule, a legal malpractice claim accrues when a person knows or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should know, that there is a substantial possibility that the person has an actionable injury. Kaseberg v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 351 Or 270, 278, 232 P3d 980 (2011)."

Plaintiff appealed a trial court grant of summary judgment in Defendant's favor. Plaintiff assigned error to the trial court's grant of summary judgment. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that their claim of malpractice was within the two-year statute of limitations. In response, Defendant argued that the statute of limitations began (1) when the Plaintiff knew it was harmed when it realized the contract was deficient, (2) when the Plaintiff realized the contract was not as profitable as anticipated, or (3) when the Plaintiff chose to breach its contract. "Under the discovery rule, a legal malpractice claim accrues when a person knows or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should know, that there is a substantial possibility that the person has an actionable injury. Kaseberg v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 351 Or 270, 278, 232 P3d 980 (2011)." The Court of Appeals held that the summary judgment should have been viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, and subsequently found that a reasonable trier of fact could have determined April 2013 as the time when Plaintiff learned from new counsel that Defendant's assurances of escaping the contract unscathed were incorrect; well within the statute of limitations. Reversed and remanded.