Opinion ID: 2196253
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendant's Statute of Limitations Argument

Text: Defendant asserts that the superior court erred in its application of a six-year statute of limitations to plaintiff's malpractice claim. Plaintiff's malpractice claim included the following allegation: As a proximate cause of the Defendant's actions the Plaintiff was forced to seek counseling and was unable to continue in her career as a real estate broker, and was unable to work for long periods of time. Defendant argues that the court erred by looking to the nature of the damages claimed by plaintiff rather than the nature of the harm done. See Kinney v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 134 Vt. 571, 575, 367 A.2d 677, 680 (1976). The court relied on our decision in Fitzgerald v. Congleton, 155 Vt. 283, 583 A.2d 595 (1990), in which we held that claims resulting in mental anguish, emotional distress, and personal humiliation were covered under 12 V.S.A. § 512(4)'s three-year statute of limitations, id. at 291, 583 A.2d at 599-600, but that damages sought by plaintiff for economic losses that do not constitute personal injuries fell under 12 V.S.A. § 511's six-year limitation. Id. at 293, 583 A.2d at 601. In Fitzgerald, as in the case before us, the plaintiff's claim of malpractice sought personal injury damages for emotional distress but [s]ome of the damages sought by plaintiff . . . [were] for economic losses that do not constitute personal injuries. Id. We determined that the plaintiff's claim included costs incurred by her to secure the return of her child. Here, to the extent plaintiff's claim of damages for work interruption is for economic losses incurred in the effort to retain custody of her child, they fall within the limitations of 12 V.S.A. § 511, and the court did not err in its application of a six-year statute of limitations to those economic losses.