Source: http://www.statutes-of-limitations.com/state/maine
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:20:37+00:00

Document:
Construction: 10 Years after “substantial completion” of the project or services rendered, but no more than 4 Years after discovery of malpractice or negligence of architect or engineer. 14 M.R.S.A. §752-A.
The general test for determining when a cause of action accrues is when a plaintiff receives a judicially recognizable injury. The Maine Supreme Court ahs limited the application of the discovery rule to three discrete areas: legal malpractice, foreign object and negligent diagnosis medical malpractice, and asbestosis. Johnston v. Dow & Colombe, Inc., 686 A.2d. 1064, 1066 (Me. 1996) (citing Bozzuto v. Ouellette, 408 A.3d 697, 699 (Me. 1979)).
Under Maine law, a cause of action for medical malpractice accrues on the date of the act or omission giving rise to the injury. Lucas v. D'Angelo, 37 F.Supp.2d 45 (D. Me. 1999).
Patient's claim against oral surgeons for failing to warn of the dangers of implant inserted to relieve jawbone malfunctions accrued, and three year statute of limitations for professional negligence began to run, when oral surgeons sent such patient a letter that advised patient of a safety alert from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding possible dangers associated with the implants. Farnum v. Oral Surgery Associates (2007) Me., 933 A.2d 1267.
The Maine Supreme Court has limited the application of the discovery rule to three discrete areas: legal malpractice, foreign object and negligent diagnosis medical malpractice, and asbestosis. The question will become whether we can prove that this is a foreign object; otherwise no discovery. Johnston v. Dow & Colombe, Inc., 686 A.2d. 1064, 1066 (Me. 1996) (citing Bozzuto v. Ouellette, 408 A.3d 697, 699 (Me. 1979)).
Courts will look to the following four factors to determine whetehr the discovery rule should apply. (1) the natureo f hte relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant; (2) the magnitude of the loss or harm; (3) the plaintiff's inability to discover that he had been wronged within teh applicable limitations period; and to a lesser degree, (4) the existence of corroborating evidence. McAfee v. Cole, 637 A.2d 463 (Me. 1994).
6 Years If a person, liable to any action mentioned, fraudulently conceals the cause thereof from the person entitled thereto, or if a fraud is committed which entitles any person to an action, the action may be commenced at any time within 6 years after the person entitled thereto discovers that he has just cause of action, except as provided in section 3580. [1985, c. 641, §1 (AMD).] 14 Me. Rev. Stat. § 859.
Genuine issue of material fact as to whether, during three-year period following operation for implantation of defective devices to relieve malfunctions of jawbone's temporomandibular joints, defendant oral surgeons engaged in conduct that a fact finder might conclude amounted to fraudulent concealment precluded summary judgment for oral surgeons in patients' negligence action. Brawn v. Oral Surgery Associates, 819 A.2d 1014 (Me. 2003).
Modified comparative negligence rule: Plaintiff can recover only if his/her percentage of fault is less than that of defendant.
Applies unless charity is insured and then liability is limited to amount of insurance.
6 Years for general SOL. 4 years: Malpractice or proof of negligence of architects or engineers with Discovery Rule of 4 years and a maximum of 10 years. 2 years: Actions against ski areas or tramway owners or operators. 2 years: Actions against dram shops.

References: §752
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1
 § 859
 v.