Diens v. Bonome

“Under the discovery rule, the statute of limitations began to run on petitioner's claim when petitioner knew 'or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known facts which would make a reasonable person aware of a substantial possibility that each of the three elements of a claim (harm, causation, and tortious conduct) exist[ed].' McLean, 189 Ore. App. at 424-25.

Petitioner appealed a general judgment that dismissed her claim for breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Respondents, reasoning that Petitioner’s claim was time-barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal, Petitioner argued that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the exact time the statute of limitations began running. Respondents failed to rely on a specific statute of limitations for their motion and, as a result, the trial court relied on a statute of its choice. Petitioner argued that ORS 12.110(1), which imposes a two-year limitation subject to the discovery rule, is the appropriate statute. Respondents argued that Petitioner had knowledge pursuant to the discovery rule more than two years prior. “Under the discovery rule, the statute of limitations began to run on Petitioner's claim when Petitioner knew 'or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known facts which would make a reasonable person aware of a substantial possibility that each of the three elements of a claim (harm, causation, and tortious conduct) exist[ed].' McLean, 189 Ore. App. at 424-25. The Court determined that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Petitioner possessed the requisite knowledge, noting that Respondents carried the burden of proof. Reversed and remanded.