Opinion ID: 2508574
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Statute of Limitations in Colorado for Negligence Actions: Accrual and Tolling

Text: In Colorado, the statute of limitations bars negligence actions brought more than two years after the action accrues. [5] § 13-80-102(1). To determine when an action accrues, the General Assembly has adopted a form of the discovery rule, which states that an action accrues on the date both the injury and its cause are known or should have been known by the exercise of reasonable diligence. § 13-80-108(1); see also Owens v. Brochner, 172 Colo. 525, 530-31, 474 P.2d 603, 606 (1970). When Colorado courts applied this rule to legal malpractice actions, they explained that such actions accrue when plaintiffs learn facts that would put a reasonable person on notice of the general nature of damage and that the damage was caused by the wrongful conduct of an attorney. Broker House Int'l, Ltd. v. Bendelow, 952 P.2d 860, 863 (Colo.App.1998); see also Morris v. Geer, 720 P.2d 994, 997 (Colo.App. 1986). Tolling is a principle independent from accrual. The tolling of a statute of limitations will either delay the start of the limitations period or suspend the running of the limitations period if the accrual date has passed. 51 Am.Jur.2d Limitation of Actions § 169 (2000); see also Thurman v. Tafoya, 895 P.2d 1050, 1054 n. 5 (Colo.1995). Courts apply the doctrine of equitable tolling to suspend a statute of limitations period when flexibility is required to accomplish the goals of justice. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Hartman, 911 P.2d 1094, 1096 (Colo. 1996) (quoting Garrett v. Arrowhead Improvement Ass'n, 826 P.2d 850, 853 (Colo. 1992)). For example, we have tolled the statute of limitations when plaintiffs did not timely file their claims because of extraordinary circumstances or because defendants' wrongful conduct prevented them from doing so. Id. at 1096-97. Thus, through two separate principles, accrual and tolling provide courts with tools to prevent statutes of limitations from expiring and barring claims. Courts have reached opposite conclusions as to whether these principles may prevent the statute of limitations from running for malpractice actions brought by criminal defendants when these defendants await appellate or postconviction relief.