I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 8 - CA- 0 2 0 4 5 - S CT REB EKA H

AN GLE
v. KO PPERS, I

N C. f / k/ a KO PPERS IND U

STR I ES, I NC. , AND I

LL I NOI SCENTRAL RAI

LROAD COM PANY, BEAZ

ER EAS T, I

NC. , AND THREE RI VERSM

ANAGEM

ENT, I NC.
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 28/ 2008 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. J OSE P H H. LOP ER, J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: GRENADA COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: ELI ZAB ETH U NG ER CA RLY LE HUNT E R W . L UNDY AN DR E F. DU CO TE J . P . HUG HES , J R. CA RTER C. HI TT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEES : CH RI STOPHER A
. SHA PELY ROBER T L . GI BBS W IL L IA M ‘T R E Y ’ JO N E S , III J OS E P H ANT HONY S CL AF ANI JA Y G O R E , III RE UB E N V. ANDE RS ON GL E NN F . BE CK HAM NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 05/ 27/ 2010 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC. LAM AR, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT:

### Angle ’s cl ai ms ori ginally wer e f il ed May 27, 2005, as part of a m as s t ort

ca se . He r 1 

### claims were sev ered, an d sh e filed th is actiononMarch17 , 20 06
. Anglenam ed a dditiona l de fe ndant s, who ar e not subj ec t t o thi s a

ppea l. The tri al 2 

### court certified th e jud gm en t as final und er Ru le 54 (b) o f the M ississipp i Ru les of C ivil Pro cedure. 2 ¶1. I n thi s t oxi c- t or tcas e, R ebeka h A ngl e as s ert s var i ous st at e- l aw cl ai m s fori nj ur i es s he 1
s uf f er ed fr om 1984 t o 2001. Fi ndi ng thes e cl ai m s t i m e- barr ed, the tr i al courtgr ant ed
su m m a ry ju d g m en t i n fav o r of the D efe n d an ts. A n g le ha s ti m ely a p p ea led to this C o u rt,
as s ert i ng tw o theor i es i n s uppor tof herar gum entt hathercl ai m s ar e nott i m e- barr ed: ( 1) t he thr ee- yearst atut e of

l i m i t at i ons underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 15- 1- 49 begi ns t o run upon dis covery of

the cau se o f th e a c tio n ; a n d a ltern a tiv e ly , th a t (2 ) th e fe d e ra l d isc o v e ry ru le in 4 2 U .S . C o d e S e c tio n 9 6 5 8 p re e m p ts S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -4 9
. FACTS ¶ 2
. O n M a rc h 1 7 , 2 0 0 6 , A n g le fi le d a c o m p la in t a g a in s t K o p p e rs In c ., B e a z e r E a s t, I n c ., T h ree R ivers M an ag em en t, Inc . , an d Il li n o is C en tr al R ail roa d C o m p an y (“ D efe n d an ts”). 2 A n g le c laim s th a t sh e w a s e x p o se d to h a rm fu l lev e ls o f to x ic c h e m ica ls, in c lu d in g c re o so te and pent achl or ophenol , thatw er e r el eas ed i nt o the envi r onm entf r om r ai l r oad t ank ca r s and tru c k s a n d fro m a w o o d -tre a tm e n t fa c ili ty . A n g le a v e rs th a t “s h e liv e d a t lo c a tio n s w ith in cl os e pr oxi m i ty” t o the t reatm entf aci l i ty, and thats he s uf f er ed i nj ur i es t o herper s on and pr operty thr ough: of f s i t e mi gr at i ons of

w ood- pr es ervat i ve l i qui ds r es ul t i ng f r om the w ood tr ea tm en t pro ce sses u sed b y K o p p ers at the P lant; offsit e m igrati o n s o f va p o rs and gas es of

chemi cal s of

conce rn atel evat ed t emper atur es ; of f s i t e mi gr at i ons of s oot , pr oduct s and by- pr oduct s of c ombus t i on r es ul t i ng f

r om ons i t e f

i r es and

### An gle av ers that “D efend ants kno win glyand intention ally failed to inv estigate fu lly 3 

### al l kn o wns o urces o f off-site co ntamin ationandfailed to make any effo rts to remed iate same, suchthat in

juryto P laintiff’s p ersonandpro pertywere certainor substanti ally certain.” 3 burni ng oper at i ons; and, of f s i t e m i gr at i ons of

aer os ol dr opl et s cont ai ni ng d iss o lv e d c o n c e n tra tio n s o f th e re fe re n c e d c h e m ica ls o f c o n c e rn fr o m a v a rie ty of onsi t e process operat i on s. A ngl e al s o aver s thatther e w er e “unc ontr ol l ed r el eases ” o f w as t e l i qui ds i nt o the s ur f ace
w at er and g roun dw at er. A ng l e seeks dam ages un der theo ri es of negli gen ce, gross
ne gl i ge nc e , ne gl i ge nc e pe rs e , i nt e nt i on a l t ort , co ns pi r a c y, pr i va t e c on s pi r a c y u nd e r42 U . S. 3 C ode Sect i on 1985( 3) , s tr i ctl i abi l i ty, tr es pas s , pr i vat e nui s ance , and f ai l ur e t o w arn. ¶ 3
. P u rsu a n t to a c o u rt o rd e r r e q u irin g A n g le to p ro v id e a m o re d e fin ite s tate m e n t, A n g le
s ubm i t t ed addi t i onal i nf or m at i on conce rni ng heral l eged expos ur e and i nj ur i es . She s t at ed the f ol l ow i ng: 2) Pl ai nt i f

f w as expos ed t o harm f ul chemi cal s f

r om the G r enada w ood tr ea tm en t f

ac il ity thro u g h the fo ll o w ing (w ith d ates): a) R es i dence addr es s T i m e per i od of r es i dence 2627 J acks on A venue 1994 - 2005 85 M i m os a D r i ve 2005 - pr es ent b) Fr om 1972 - 1992 Pl ai nt i f f w or ked atT i e Pl antE l ement ary. c) Fr om 1990 - 199 1 Pl ai nt i f f w al ked thr ough the G r enada w ood tr eatm entf

aci l i ty. d ) In 1 9 8 0 trea ted w o o d fr o m K o p p ers w as b rou g h t into P lai n ti ff’ s hom e. 3) A s a r es ul tof

expos ur e t o harm f

ul chem i cal s f

r om the G r enada w ood tr eatm entf

aci l i ty, Pl ai nt i f

f has s uf f er ed: Illn e ss D a te o f D iag n o sis I nf i l tr at i ng duct al car ci nom a 2001 of the b reas t

### Comprehe nsi ve Environm ent alRes ponse , C om pens ati on , and Lia

bil it y Act of 1980, 4 

### 42 U.S. C.§§ 9601 t o 9675 (2006)
. 4

O var i an cys t s 1999 D N C [ s i c] 1990 H ys t er ect om y 1994 O var i es r emoved 2000 L um pect om y 2001 Ski n r as hes 2000 H eada ches 1984 ¶4. U pon r ece i ptof thi s i nf or m at i on, D ef

endant s m oved f

ors um m ary j udgm entbas ed on the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons . D ef

endant s a r gued thatal l of A ngl e’ s i l l nes s es w er e di agnos ed no lat er tha n 2 0 0 1 , ap p rox im ately five y ea rs be fore A n g le fi led h er c o m p lai n t. D efe n d a n ts fu rth e r a rg u e d th a t th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s fo r la ten t in ju rie s a c c ru e s w h e n th e ill n e ss is di ag no s e d, a nda s s uc h, A ng l e ’ s c l a i ms wer e t i m e- barr ed underSect i ons 15- 1- 49 and 15- 1- 35
o f t h e M is s is s ip p i C o d e . See M iss. C o d e A n n . § § 1 5 -1-4 9 , 1 5 -1-3 5 (R ev . 2 0 0 3 ). In
r es pons e, A ngl e r el i ed upon the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on i n B eck v. K oppers, I nc. , 2 0 0 5 WL 2 7 1 5 9 1 0 (N .D . M is s . O c t. 2 1 , 2 0 0 5 ), over r ul ed by B ar nes ex r el . Barnes v. K

oppers, I nc. , 534 F. 3d 357 ( 5th C i r . 2008) , t o ar gue t hat the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons f

oral l cl ai m s di d not b e g in to ru n u n til s h e k n e w o f h e r i n ju ry a n d its c a u s e . 

### Angledi d not a ss ert when or how s he disco veredthe co nn ectionbetw een h er injuries andcreoso te andpentachl o ro p h en ol. D efe n d an ts f

il ed a re b u tt al i n w h ich the y asse rt ed th at cau se an d ca u sati v e re lat ion sh ip w ere
n o ta p p l i c a b l e f

a c t o r s un d e rSe c t i o n 15
- 1
- 4 9 , a n d t h a tA n g l e ha d f a i l e d t o p l e a d a CERCLA 4

### We not e that Angle didnot as se rt

thest at uteof l im it ations under

CERCLA in he r 5 

### respo nse to the mo tionfor summary ju dg ment. C ER CL A is mention ed fo r the first time in theap pellate r ec ord in Def endants ’ r eply to Angl e’ s res ponseto t he m oti on for

summary judgm ent . De fe ndant s argue d that “ Plaintif f of fe rs a one- paragraph argum ent la cking auth orityor d iscussio n seek ing to invo ke th e [CE RC LA ] commencement date, a statute with no relevan ce to th is case.” The tri alcourt rel ie d upon Poll ard v. Sherwin- Wil

li ams Co. , 955 So. 2d76 4 (M iss. 6 

### 20 07 ); Shiro v. Am. Tobac co Co. , 611 So. 2d 962 ( Mis s. 1992); and Owens-I ll inoi s, Inc .v . Edwards , 57 3 S o. 2 d 7 04 (Miss. 1 99 0), all o f wh ich w e will d iscuss infra
. 5 caus e of act i on. D ef

endant s fur t herar gued thatthe appl i cat i on of C E R C L A w oul d be an 5
u n c o n stitu tio n a l v io latio n o f th e C o m m e rc e C lau se a n d th e T e n th A m e n d m e n t. ¶5. W i thoutor al a r gum ent , t he tr i al cou rti ssued an op i nion i n sup po rtof i t s f i nal j udgm entgr ant i ng D ef endant s ’ m ot i on f

ors um m ary j udgm ent . T he tr i al courtf ound t hat M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 15-1- 35 w as i nappl i cabl e, s i nce A ngl e’ s i nt ent i onal
- t or tcl ai m w as
n o t l is te d in th a t c o d e s e c tio n . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 15- 1- 35 ( R ev. 2003)
. T he courtf ound that all o f A n g le’s claim s w ere g o v e rn e d b y M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 1 5 -1-4 9 an d w ere tim e -b a rr e d
. See M iss . C o d e A n n . § 1 5 -1 -4 9 ( R e v . 2 0 0 3 ). T h e trial c o u rt a p p lied th is C our t ’ s c as el aw a nd the Fi f th Ci r cui t ’ s de ci s i on i n B ar nes ex rel . B ar nes v. K

oppers, I nc. , 6 534 F. 3d 357 ( 5th C i r . 2008), and f ound thatthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons began t o run on A n g le ’s c a u s e o f a c tio n “ w h e n s h e h a d k n o w le d g e o f h e r h e a d a c h e s , D N C [s ic ], hys t er ect om y, ova r i an cys t s , r emoval of ova r i es , s ki n r as hes , l um pect om y, and i nf i l tr at i ng d u c ta l c a rc in o m a o f t h e b re a s t, n o t w h e n s h e h a d k n o w le d g e o f t h e s e in ju ri e s , illn e s s e s . . . and thei rc aus e. ” The tr i al c our ta l s o f ound thatA ngl e, l i ke the pl ai nt i ff i n B a rn e s ex re l.

### 6

B arn es, had f

ai l ed t o of

f ers uf f i ci entpr oof

that42 U
. S. C ode Sect i on 9658 pr eempt s Sect i on 15- 1- 49. DI S CU S S I ON ¶6. “T h is C o u rtc o n d u cts a d e n ov o revi ew of orders grant i ng or deny i ng su m m ary jud g m en t and loo k s at all the e v iden ti ary m att ers b efo re it – ad m issi o n s in p lead ing s, an sw ers t o i nt err ogat or i es , depos i t i ons , af f i davi t s , et c. ” McClinton v. D el ta P r ide Cat

f is h, I nc. , 792 S o . 2 d 9 6 8 , 9 7 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ). T h e m o v ing pa rty “b ea rs th e b u rde n o f pers uadi ngthe tr i al ju d g e tha t: (1 ) n o g e n u in e issu e o f m a ter ial fa c t ex ists, an d (2 ) o n the b a sis o f t h e fa c ts
es t abl i s hed, he i s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” P a lm e rv . B ilo x i R e g ’l Me d . Ctr., I nc. , 564 So. 2d 1346, 1355 ( M i s s . 1990)
. H ow ever , the movantbear s the bur den of pr oduct i on if

, a t tr ia l, h e w o u ld h a v e th e b u rd e n o f p ro o f o n th a t is s u e . W ebster v. Miss. Publis he rs Corp. , 5 7 1 S o . 2 d 9 4 6 , 9 4 9 (M iss . 1 9 9 0 ). F u rth e rm o re , the n o n m o v in g p a rty cannots ur vi ve a m ot i on f ors um m ary j udgm entby r el yi ng on a “[ m ] er e al l egat i on ordeni al of m at er i al fac t . ” P al

m er , 564 So. 2d a t 1 3 5 6 . In o th e r w o rd s, “ th e p lain tiff m a y n o t re ly
s ol el y upon uns w orn a l l egat i ons i n the pl eadi ngs , or‘ ar gum ent s a nd a s s ert i ons i n br i ef s or l egal m emora nda. ’ ” I

d . ( quot i ng Mag ee v. T

ran scon tin en tal G as P i pe L in e Corp . , 551 So. 2 d 1 8 2 , 1 8 6 (M iss . 1 9 8 9 )). L a st, th e c o u rt v iew s th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e n o n m o v in g p a rt y . W ebs ter , 571 So. 2d at949. I . W HETH ER ANG LE’ S CLA I M S ARE TI M E- BARRED U NDER MI S S I S S I P P I L A W. ¶7 . A ngl e as s e r t s tha t the s t a tut e of l i mi t a t i on s f or a l l he r a s s e r t e d c l a i ms be ga n t o run
w h e n sh e d isc o v e re d th a t h e r m e d ica l p ro b lem s w e re th e re su lt o f e x p o su re to to x ic

### 7

chemi cal s . C onver s el y, D ef endant s ar gue, and the tr i al courtagreed, thatthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i on s beg an t o run w hen A ng l e d i scovered o r w as di agn osed w i th h er var i ou s i l l nesses. ¶8. T hi s C our tm us tfi r s tdet erm i ne w hetherM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 15- 1- 35 governs th e in ten tio n a l-to rt c laim . S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -3 5 p ro v id e s th a t: A ll ac tio n s fo r a ss a u lt, a ss a u lt an d b a ttery , m a im in g , fals e im p riso n m e n t, m al i ci ous arr es t , orm enac e, and al l act i ons f ors l ander ous w or ds conce rni ng the per s on ort i t l e, f

orf ai l ur e t o empl oy, and f

orl i bel s , s hal l be comm ence d w ith in o n e (1 ) ye ar n ex t aft er the ca u se o f ac ti o n ac cru ed , an d n o t aft er. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 15- 1- 35 ( R ev. 2003)
. W e f i nd thatt he pl ai n l anguage of the s t atut e does notcoveran i nt ent i onal t or tf orf ai l i ng t o i nves t i gate a nd r emedi at e cont ami nat i on of pr operty. Fur therm ore, thi s averm entof an i nt ent i onal t or ti s not“s ubs t ant i al l y l i ke” the

“ e n u m e ra te d e ig h t” to rt s o f S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -3 5 . See Cit y of Mound B ayou v. Johnson , 562 So. 2d 1212, 1 21 8 ( M i s s . 1990)
. T her ef or e, w e f i nd thatthe tr i al courtdi d noterri n f i ndi ng Sect i on 15- 1- 35 t o be i nappl i cabl e. ¶ 9
. T h e p a rties d o n o t d isp u te th a t M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -4 9 (2 ) a p p lies to a ll cl ai m s i n the eventthatSect i on 15- 1- 35 does notgovern the i nt ent i onal t or t - cl ai m . Sect i on 1 5 -1 -4 9 p ro v id e s, in re lev a n t p a rt, th a t: ( 1) A l l act i ons f

orw hi ch no otherper i od of l i m i t at i on i s pr es cr i bed s hal l be comm ence d w i thi n thr ee ( 3) year s next af t erthe caus e of

act i on accr ued , and n o t aft er. ( 2) In ac t i ons forw hi ch no ot herper i od of l i m i t at i on i s pre s cr i bed and w hi ch i nvo lve l atenti njury or disease , the ca us e of act i on does notaccr ue unt i lthe plai nt i f f has dis cove r ed, orby r eas onabl e di l igence s hould have dis cove r ed, the inj ury .

### We not ed that a “causeof a ction a cc rue s only when i t c ome s into e xis te nceas an 7 

### enfo rceable claim; th at is, wh en th e right to sue beco mes vested . .
. . A cause of actio n mu st exi st and becom

ple tebef orean a ction c an becomme nce d, and, whe n a s uit is begun be for e the cau se of actio n accru es, it will g enerallybe d ismissed if p ro p ero bjectio n is mad e.” Edwards , 573 So. 2d at

706. 8 M iss . C o d e A n n . § 1 5 -1 -4 9 (1 )- (2 ) ( R e v . 2 0 0 3 ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). A s n o ted b y th is C o u rt,

“ [n ]ot a ll d isc o v e ry ru les a re c re a ted e q u a l. In a n a ly z in g w h a t th e p lain tiff m u st d isc o v e r in
or dert o tr i gger t he running of the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons , w e or di nar i l y ar e gui ded by the
w or di ng of

a s t atut e’ s di s covery pr ovi s i on. ” Caves v. Y arbr ough , 991 So. 2d 142, 154- 55 ( M i s s . 2008) ( i n “compar i ng the di s covery rul es i n the medi cal
- m al pr act i ce s t atut e and the

‘ cat ch- al l ’ s t atut e, w e have one w hi ch f ocus es on di s covery of the dat e of

the w r ongf

ul
c o n d u c t, an d a no ther w hich f ocu ses on the d ate of

dis covery o

f the inj ury or dis ease ”) (em ph asi s added ). W e fi nd that the p l ai n langua ge o f the st atute s up po rt s D efendan t s’
a rg u m e n t t h a t t h e c a u s e o f a c tio n a c c ru e d u p o n d is c o v e ry o f t h e in ju ry , not dis cove r

y of the i njury andi t

s cause . W h ile n o t alw a y s a m o d e l o f c o n s is te n c y , o u r c a se law su p p o rts th is pl ai n r eadi ng of

the s t atut e. ¶1 0. I n O w ens -I

llinois, I

nc. v. E dw ar ds , t hi s Courti nt e rpr et ed a pr i orver s i on of M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -4 9 w h ich d id n o t co n tain th e p re se n t d isc o v e ry ru le s e t fo rth in s u b s e c tio n tw o o f t h a t s ta tu te . O w ens -I l l inois, I nc v. E dw ar ds , 573 So. 2d 704, 707, 709 (M iss . 1 9 9 0 ). T h e C o u rt w a s p re se n ted w ith th e iss u e o f d e ter m in in g w h e n a p ro d u c ts liab ili ty an d n e g lig e n c e ac tio n ac c ru e d , an ac tio n in w h ich th e p lain tiff w a s d iag n o se d w ith 7 pu l m on ary pl eural asbest osi s al m ostt en years subsequ ent t o his l astexp o su re to asbest os. I d. at705. I n E dw ar ds , this C o u rtrec o g n ized that “the re a re c ertain c au ses o f acti o n w h ere

### During the p end encyof th e action , th e Leg islature amen dedSectio n 1 5-1 -49 to 8 

### inclu de th e p re se nt v er sionof th e disco veryrule. Id. at 706; Mi ss . CodeAnn § 15-1- 49 (Re v. 2003)
. At th e time of th is decisio n, th e statute o f limitation s was sixyears. Id. at 963. 9 

### 9 the w r ongf

ul actand the r es ul t i ng i nj ury do notoccurs i m ul t aneousl y, an d thi s s houl d be t aken i nt o cons i der at i on w hen i nt erpr et i ng § 15- 1- 49 f orpurpo ses of accrual
. ” I d . at708. T he C our tconcl uded thata di s covery rul e di d exi s ti n conj unct i on w i th Sect i on 15- 1- 49 and that“the di s covery rul e adopt ed i s i dent i cal t o t he rul e pr ovi ded i n M i s s . C ode A nn. § 15-1- 4 9 (2 ) ( S u p p . 1 9 9 0 ).” I d . at7 09
. T he C our thel d thatthe ca us e of act i on acc rued and the 8 l i m i t at i ons per i od began t o run “w hen t he pl ai nt i f f can r eas onabl y be hel d t o have know l edge of the i nj ury ordi s eas e. ” I d. I n di ctum , t he C our tfurtherst at ed t hat“[ t ] hough t he caus e of the i nj ury and the ca us at i ve r el at i ons hi p betw een the i nj ury and the i nj ur i ous actorpr oduct
m ay al s o be as cert ai nabl e on t hi s dat e, t hes e f act or s ar e nota p p lic a b le u n d e r § 1 5 -1 -4 9 (2 )[ .]” I d. (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶11. T hi s C our tappl i ed O w ens -I l linois, I nc. i n Schir o v. A m er i can T obacco Co. , a case in w h ic h th e p la in tif

f w a s d ia g n o s e d w ith c a n c e r a ft e r m a n y y e a rs o f s m o k in g . S c h ir o v. A m. T obacco Co. , 6 1 1 S o . 2 d 9 6 2 , 9 6 5 (M iss . 1 9 9 2 ). T h e p lain tiff b e g a n sm o k in g in 1 9 4 3 , q u it in 1 9 7 7 , a n d w a s d ia g n o s e d w ith c a n c e r i n 1 9 8 2
. I d . T h e p la in tif

f f ile d s u it in 1 9 8 8
. I

d. A ppl yi ng O w ens -I

l linois, I nc. , th e C o u rthe ld th at th e “c au se o f acti o n ac cru ed o n Jan u ary 26, 1982, w hen the doct ordi agnos ed thatthe mass w as canc er ous [ , ] and as such, the ac t i on
w as nott i m e- barr ed. I d. 9

### 10

¶12. H ow ever , i n S ch iro , w e conf us ed the i s s ue by pr ocee di ng i n dictum t o anal yze the def endant s ’ ar gum entthatthe pl ai nt i f f s houl d have f

i l ed sui tw i thi n si x year s of 1981, w hen the pl ai nt i f

f di s cover ed a “m as s . ” I d . T he C our ts t at ed that , i n 1981, the pl ai nt i f f “di d not
a c tu a lly k n o w th a t s h e h a d c a n c e r, an i nj ur y connec t ed w i th s m oki ng . T hus , even i f s he had br oughts ui tatthi s poi nt , the cl ai m w oul d have be en pr ematur e. ” I d. (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). W e not e thatthe pr operi nqu i ry underthe s t atut e s houl d have be en the pl ai nt i f f’ s di s covery of th e in ju ry o r d ise a se , i.e., a d iag n o sis o f c a n c e r, n o t th e d isc o v e ry o f a c a u sa tiv e re latio n sh ip b etw ee n sm o k ing an d the c an ce r. ¶13. I n P

P G A rchitec tura l Finish es, In c. v. L ow ery , 909 So. 2d 47 ( M i s s . 2005) , the pl ai nt i f f w entt o w or k on O ct ober 1, 1 99 9, and not i ced w etpai ntthr oughoutthe of f i ce b u ild in g . P

P G A r chitectural

Finis hes, I

nc. , 909 So. 2d at48. T he pl ai nt i f f beca m e s i ck and d is o ri e n te d a n d p a s s e d o u t f ro m e x p o s u re to th e p a in t f u m e s . I d. T h e p lain tiff w a s tak e n to th e h o s p ita l, a n d th e d o c to r f o u n d th e p la in tif

f’ s in ju ri e s w e re d u e to c h e m ic a l e x p o s u re . I d. ¶1 4
. T h e p lai n ti ff fi led a co m p lai n t i n 2 0 0 0 ag ains t her e m p loy er a n d a p ainting co n tr ac tor. I d . a t 49
. In 2 0 0 3 , th e p lain tiff am e n d e d h e r co m p lain t an d a d d e d a n a d d iti o n a l d e fe n d a n t. I d . T hi s new def

endantf i l ed a mot i on f

ors um m ary j udgm entbas ed o n t he st at ut e of lim ita tio n s , w h ic h th e tr ia l c o u rt d e n ie d
. I d . at48. ¶15. O n appea l , thi s C our t r ei t er at ed t hat S ect i on 15- 1- 49 cont ai ns a di s covery rul e and “[ a] ti ssue i n al l cases . . . i s w hen t he pl ai nt i f f di s cover s [ hi s or her ] i nj ury ordi s eas e. ” I d. at49. T he C our tcorr ect l y s t at ed thati tm us tcons i derthe pl ai nt i f f’ s act i ons “i n det erm i ni ng
w hethers he ‘ knew ’ or‘ r eas onabl y shoul d have know n’ t hatshe had s uf f er ed an i nj ury. ” I

d.

### 11

at51. D es pi t e the C our t ’ s w ander i ngs i nt o an ana l ys i s of num er ous m edi cal
- m al pr act i ce
ca ses (w h ich a re g o v ern ed b y a d if feren t st atute o f l im it ati o n s an d a differen t d isco v ery rule), the C our tul t i m at el y c oncl uded thatthe pl ai nt i f f had know l edge of

heri nj ur y on O ct ober1, 1 9 9 9 , a n d th e re fo re , th e a c tio n a s s e rt e d in th e a m e n d e d c o m p la in t w a s tim e -b a rr e d
. I d. (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶16. I n anot hercas e i nvol vi ng i nj ur i es due t o pai ntexpos ur e, the pl ai nt i f f f i l ed s ui ti n 2000
w h e n b lo o d tes ts in 1 9 9 3 h a d c o n firm e d th a t h e r so n su ffe re d fro m e x c e ss iv e e x p o su re to le a d
. Pol

lar d v. She r win- W

il liam s C o. , 9 5 5 S o . 2 d 7 6 4 , 7 6 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ). T h is C o u rt gr ant ed ce r t i or ar i and f

ound t hatt he appl i cabl e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons w as M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 15- 1- 49( 1) and t hatt he caus e of act i on had accrued no l at erthan Sept ember1993,
w h e n th e b lo o d te s ts h a d c o n fi rm e d th e le a d e x p o s u re . I d . a t 7 6 9 -7 0 . S im ilarly , in a p ro p e rty
ac ti o n in w h ich th e p lai n ti ff all eg ed that the d efe n d an t had co n tam inated the p lain ti ff’ s p ro p e rty w ith o il w a ste , this C o u rt fo u n d th e c o n tam in a tio n w a s “ ‘in h e re n tly
u n d is c o v e ra b le ’” a n d th e c a u s e o f a c tio n h a d a c c ru e d u p o n d is c o v e ry o f t h e in ju ry . D o n a ld
v. A m oco Prod. Co. , 735 So. 2d 161, 166- 68 ( M i ss. 1 999). T hi s C our tnot ed thatt he di s covery exce pt i on of

Sect i on 15- 1- 49 i s appl i cabl e “ w her e the plai nt i f f w i l lbe pr ecluded f r om dis cove r i ng the har m ori nj ur y b e c a u se o f th e se c re tiv e o r in h e re n tly u n d isc o v e ra b le natur e of the w r ongdoi ng i n que s t i on . . . [ o] r , the di s covery exce pt i on m ay be appl i ed w hen i ti s unr eal is t i c t o expe ct a laym an t o per cei ve the i nj ur y atthe t i m e of

t he w r ongf

ul act . ” I d. at 16 8 (em p h asis ad d ed ).

### 12

¶1 7. I n an anal og ou s ca s e t o the i ns t a ntone , t he Fi f th Ci r c ui tC ou r tof

A pp e a l s he l d that S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -4 9 (2 ) f

o c u s e s o n d is c o v e ry o f a n in ju ry , n o t d is c o v e ry o f i ts c a u s e . B ar nes ex
r el . B arnes v. K

oppers, I nc. , 534 F. 3d 357, 360 ( M i s s . 2008). C i t i ng E dw ards and S h iro , th e F ifth C irc u it n o ted th a t: T he l at entdi s covery s t atut e di f f er s m arkedl y f

r om M i s s i s s i ppi ’s l i m i t at i ons pr ovi s i on governi ng m edi cal m al pr act i ce s ui t s , w hi ch comm ence s onl y w hen the n egli gen tact“sha ll o r w i th reasonab l e dil i gen ce m i gh thav e been fi rs t k n o w n o r d isc o v e re d
. . .” T h a t th e m e d ica l m a lp ra c tic e p ro v isio n re fe rs to d isco v ery o f th e “n eg lect” as o p p o sed to the “inju ry” ev iden ce the leg isl ature ’s abi l i ty t o craf

ta di s covery rul e l i ke thatadvoca t ed by [ the pl ai nt i f f ] , and r ei nf or ces the l i m i t ed s cope of the l at entdi s covery pr ovi s i on. I d . ¶18. Sect i on 15- 1- 49( 2) provides a di s covery rul e t hat del ays the accrual of the caus e of act i on unt i l the pl ai nt i f f di s cover s orw i th r eas onabl e di l i gence s houl d have di s cover ed a la te n t i n ju ry o r d ise a se . M iss
. C o d e A n n . § 1 5 -1 -4 9 (2 ) (R e v . 2 0 0 3 ). A s w e h a v e s a id , a “cause o f act i on accrues only w hen i tcom es i nto exi st ence as an enforceabl e clai m ; that i s,
w hen the r i ghtt o s ue becomes ves t ed[
. ] ” O wens -I l linoi s, I nc . v. E dw ar ds , 573 So. 2d 704, 7 0 6 (M iss . 1 9 9 0 ). W e fin d th a t A n g le’ s c a u se o f a c tio n a c c ru e d a t th e late st in 2 0 0 1 , the d a te
s he w as l as tdi agnos ed w i th an i nj ury ordi s eas e. N o pr ovi s i on of Sect i on 15- 1- 49 pr ovi des tha ta p l a i nt i f

f mus th a ve k no w l e dg e o f the c a us e o f

the i nj ury be f

or e the c aus e of

act i on
ac cru es, i n it iat ing the ru n n ing o f the statute o f l im it ati o n s. T h ere fore , w e find that A n g le’s cl ai m s ar e t i m e- barr ed underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 15- 1- 49( 2) , as s he f i l ed hercompl ai nt i n 2006, appr oxi m at el y f i ve yea r s af

t erherdi s covery of

the l as ti nj ury. I I . W H ETH ER 4 2 U. S. CO DE SECTI O N 9 6 5 8 PRE EM PTS M I SS I SS I PPI C O D E S E C T IO N 1 5 -1-4 9 (2).

### 13

¶19. A l t ernat i vel y, A ngl e ar gues thati f thi s Courtf

i nds he rcl ai m s t o be t i m e- barr ed under Sect i on 15- 1- 49, 42 U
. S. C ode Sect i on 9658 pr eempt s the s t at e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . Sect i on 9 6 5 8 p ro v id e s in re lev a n t p a rt th a t:

I n the cas e of

a ny a ct i on br oughtunde rSt at e l aw f orpe r s onal i nj ury, or pr operty damages, w hi ch ar e ca us ed orcontr i but ed t o by expos ur e t o any haza r dous subst ance , orpol l ut antorcont ami nant , r el eas ed i nt o the envi r onm entf

r om a f aci l i ty, i f the appl i cabl e l i m i t at i ons per i od f ors uch ac t i on ( as s peci f

i ed i n the St at e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons orundercomm on l aw ) pr ovi des a c omm e nc e mentda t e w hi c h i s e a r l i e rt han the f eder al l y r equi r ed c o m m e n c e m e n t da te , su c h p e rio d sh a ll co m m e n c e a t the f eder al l y re qui r ed com m ence m ent

dat e i n l i eu of

the dat e s peci f

i ed i n s uch St at e s t atut e. 42 U
. S. C
. § 9658(a ) ( 1) (2006) ( emphasi s added)
. T he “f eder al l y r equi r ed comm ence m ent dat e” i s “the dat e the pl ai nt i f f knew ( orreas onabl y s houl d have know n) thatthe per s onal i nj ury or pr operty dam ages . . . w er e caus ed orcontr i but ed to by the haz ar dous s ubs t ance or p o ll u tant o r con tam inan t co n ce rne d
. ” 4 2 U . S
. C
. § 9 6 5 8 (b)(4 )(A ) (20 0 6 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶ 2 0
. P re e m p tio n o c c u rs in thr e e circ u m sta n c e s: “(1 ) w h e re C o n g re ss ex p licitly p re e m p ts
s t at e l aw ; (2) w her e pr eempt i on i s i m pl i ed beca us e C ongr es s has occ upi ed t he ent i r e f i el d;
or( 3) w her e pr eempt i on i s i m pl i ed bec aus e ther e i s an ac tual conf l i ctbetw een f

eder al and
s t at e l aw . ” H

arm on v. Regions Bank , 9 6 1 S o . 2 d 6 9 3 , 6 9 7 ( M is s . 2 0 0 7 ). It is c lea rly
es t abl i s hed thatthe party cl ai m i ng pr eempt i on, i n thi s cas e A ng l e, bear s the bur den of d e m o n s tr a tin g th a t fe d e ra l la w p re e m p ts s ta te la w . S e e , e .g ., S il kw oo d v. K

err- McG ee Corp . , 4 6 4 U .S . 2 3 8 , 2 5 5 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 61 5 , 7 8 L . E d . 2 d 4 4 3 (1 9 8 4 ); B ar nes ex r el . B ar nes v. K oppers, I nc. , 5 3 4 F . 3 d 3 5 7 , 3 6 2 (5th C ir
. 2 0 0 8 ).

### 14

¶ 2 1
. W e n o te th a t “ C o n g re s s e n a c te d § 9 6 5 8 a s p a rt o f a b u n d le o f a m e n d m e n ts to C E R C L A know n as t he Super f und A m endment s and R eauthor i zat i on A ctof 1986 .
. . [ and that ] the pr oper s cope of § 9658 pr eempt i on has be en the s ubj ectof m uch deba t e[
. ] ” B ar nes
ex. r el B ar nes , 534 F
. 3 d at362. W e agr ee w i th the Fi f th C i r cui tthat“C ongr es s i nt ended t o pr eemptl es s f

avor abl e s t at e l aw t ol l i ng pr ovi s i ons f orcert ai n t oxi c t or tcas es [ , ] ” but , as p re v io u s ly n o te d , A n g le b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f p e rs u a s io n . I d . at363. A ngl e mustper s uade th e c o u r tth a tS e c t i o n 9 6 5 8 p r e e mp t s s t a t e l a w b y s h o wi n g , a ta mi n i mu m, th a th e rc l a i ms
m eetthe s i x el ement s of thatf eder al s t atut e, namel y: (1) pr operty damage and/ orper s onal i nj ury ( 2) caus ed orcontr i but ed t o by ( 3) a ha zar dous s ubs t ance orpol l ut antorcont ami nant (4) relea sed (5) into th e e n v ir o n m en t ( 6 ) fr o m a fa cil ity . 4 2 U . S
. C
. § 9 6 5 8 (a)(1) (2 0 0 6 ). A lth o u g h e a c h o f th e se s ix s tatu to ry e lem e n ts h a s a s p e c ific sta tu to ry d e fin iti o n , w e fin d it
u n n e c e s s a ry to o u r a n a ly s is to fu rt h e r e x p o u n d o n th e s e s ta tu to ry e le m e n ts . See 4 2 U. S
. C. § 9 6 0 1 (20 0 6 ). ¶ 2 2
. A fte r re v iew in g th e re c o rd , th is C o u rt c a n n o t fin d a n y a rg u m e n t s e t fo rt h b y A n g le thatper s uades us thatthe s t atut ory el ement s of 42 U
. S. C ode Sect i on 9658 pr eempt M iss iss ip p i C o d e 1 5 -1 -4 9 . A s th e a p p e llan t b e fo re th is C o u rt, A n g le h a s th e b u rd e n to
ens ur e thatthe r ecor d cont ai ns s uf f i ci ent evi dence t o s uppor tan as s i gnm entof err oron
a p p e a l. Q ueen v. Q ueen , 5 5 1 S o . 2 d 1 9 7 , 1 9 9 ( M is s . 1 9 8 9 ). A s p re v io u s ly n o te d , 

### CE RC LA is me nti oned f

or the f ir st timein the app ellate r ec ord in Def endants ’ r eply to Angl e’ s re spons e t o themotion for s umm ar y j udgme nt. The re cord i s void of any evi denc e be for e the trial co urt th at CE RC LApreemp ts state law. A bs entany evi dence i n t he recor d t o t he

### 15

contr ary, w e af

f i r m the tr i al co urt ’s j udgm entthatA ngl e f ai l ed t o carry herbur den of
s how i ng that42 U
. S. C ode Sect i on 9648 pr eemp t s M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 15- 1- 49. CO NC L US I ON ¶23. W e f

i nd that A ngl e’ s cl ai m s are t i m e- barr ed by the thr ee- year s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons
se t fo rth in M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -4 9 (1 )-(2 ). W e fu rth e r fin d th a t A n g le f a iled to
carry herbur den of

s how i ng that42 U
. S. C ode Sect i on 9 64 8 pr eempt s M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Secti on 1 5- 1- 49. W e af f i r m the tr i al court ’ s gr antof s um m ary j udgm enti n f avorof t he D efendan t s. ¶24. AF F I RM ED . W ALLER, C. J . , CAR LS ON , P. J . , DI CK I NSON, RAN DO LPH, CH AND LER AND P I ER CE , J J . , CONCUR. KI TCHEN S , J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEP ARA TE W R I T T E N O P I N I O N JO I N E D B Y G R A V E S, P . J.
KI T CH E NS , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶25. B eca us e I cannotagr ee w i th the maj or i ty’ s i nt erpr et at i on of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 15- 1- 49( 2) , thata pl ai nt i f f need notknow t he caus e of heri nj ury f

orthe s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons to b e g in ru n n in g , I m u st re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. ¶26. M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 15- 1- 49( 2) pr ovi des thata “c aus e of act i on does not acc rue unt i l the pl ai nt i f

f has di s cover ed, orby r eas onabl e di l i gence s houl d have di s cover ed the i nj ury. ” The maj or i ty i nt erpr et s thi s l anguage t o m ean that“[ n] o pr ovi s i on of Sect i on 15- 1- 49 provides that a pl ai nti ff m usthav e k no w l edg e o f the cau se of the inj ury before the cau se of a ct i on a ccrues . . . . ” M aj
. O p. at¶ 18. Y et , the cor ol l ary i s al s o true: ther e i s no pr ovi s i on of Sect i on 15- 1- 49 w hi ch pr ovi des thatthe di scovery rul e i s appl i cabl e onl y t o the i nj ur ed

### 16

per s on’ s di s covery of

the i nj ury i t s el f

, and not hi ng m or e. T hi s C our thas hel d that“[ i ] f the
s t atut e i s ambi guous , w e pl ace upon i ta const ruct i on w hi ch f avor s pr es ervat i on of

t he pl ai nt i f f’ s c aus e of

a ct i on. ” D onald v. A m oco Prod. Co. , 735 So. 2d 161, 166 ( M i s s . 1999) ( quot i ng W

il liam s v. K

il go re , 6 1 8 S o . 2 d 5 1 , 5 5 (M iss
. 1 9 9 2 )). T h e re fo re , th is C o u rt sh o u ld adher e t o the rul e thatf or case s w hi ch f

al l underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 15- 1- 49, “[ t ] he
o p e ra tiv e tim e fo r th e ru n n in g o f th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s is w h e n th e p lain tiff c a n re a so n a b ly be hel d t o ha ve kn owl e dg e of the i nj ury i t s e l f

, the c a us e of

the i nj ury, a nd the c a us a t i ve
r el at i ons hi p be tw een the i nj ury a nd the conductof the def endant
. ” B oyles v. Schlum ber ger T ech. Cor p. , 832 So. 2d 503, 506 ( M i s s . 2002) ( quot i ng Sm ith v. S an ders , 485 So. 2d 1051, 1 0 5 2 (M is s . 1 9 8 6 ))
. ¶27. I ndeed, w e cons i s t ent l y hav e held t hat a caus e of act i on acc rues , and the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons “begi ns t o run w hen a ll th e e le m e n ts o f a to rt , o r c a u s e o f a c tio n , a re p re s e n t.” W eat hers v. Metr o. L i

f e I ns. Co. , 14 So. 3d 688, 692 ( M i ss. 2 00 9) ( emphasi s added) ( quot i ng Caves v. Y

arbr ough , 991 So. 2d 142, 147 ( M i s s . 2008) )
. T he es s ent i al el ement s of
a n e g lig e n c e c la im a re (1 ) d u ty , (2 ) b re a c h o f d u ty , (3 ) c a u s a tio n , a n d (4 ) i n ju ry , Hol

liday v. Pi zz a I nn , 6 5 9 S o . 2 d 8 6 0 , 8 6 4 (M iss . 1 9 9 5 ). T h u s, a n in ju ry is n o t a le g a lly c o g n iza b le in ju ry u n les s it w a s c a u se d b y so m e o th e r’s to rtio u s c o n d u c t. F u rth e rm o re , “ [i] t is w e lles t abl i s hed t hatt he st atut e of l i m i t at i ons does notrun a gai ns tone w ho has nei theractual nor
cons truct i ve not i ce of

f act s thatw oul d ent i t l e hi m t o br i ng an ac t i on. ” D o n a ld , 735 So. 2d at166 ( ci t i ng Wil

lia ms , 618 So. 2d at55 ( M i s s . 1992) )
. T hus , the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons

### 17

c a n n o tb e g i n t o ru n u n t i l a p l a i n t i f f i s a wa r e o f

a l l f o u re l e me n t s o f

a n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m, in c lu d in g c a u s a tio n . B oyles , 8 3 2 S o . 2 d a t 5 0 6
. ¶ 2 8
. E v e n if A n g le k n e w th a t sh e w a s in ju re d n o late r th a n 2 0 0 1 , h e r c a u se o f a c tio n w o u ld nothave a ccrued unt i l s he knew the cau se of heri nj ur i es , i ncl udi ng t he i dent i ty of w ho had
caus ed them. H ow ever , A ngl e has ne vera s s ert ed, e i thera tthe tr i al courtoron appea l , w hen sh e d isco v ere d the c au se o f he r in juries. T h ere fore , I w o u ld rev erse the g ran t of su m m ary j udgm entand r emand the ca s e f ora det erm i nat i on of

w hen A ngl e f

i r s tknew the ca us e of

her i njur i es. GRAVE S , P . J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.