Opinion ID: 1203043
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Statute of Limitation Chemetronics

Text: The circuit court granted summary judgment dismissing the appellants' claims against Chemetronics, filed on October 11, 2002, finding the claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitation. See W.Va. Code, 55-2-12. The Bennetts claim that they filed an amended complaint immediately upon discovering in October 2001 that Chemetronics manufactured the heat sensors used in the fire alarm system and acted reasonably and timely, based upon information that they knew or reasonably should have known at relevant times. Chemetronics asserts that the Bennetts reasonably knew or should have known by June 2000 of Chemetronics' potential liability, and that the October 2002 complaint was not timely. We discussed in Keesecker v. Bird, 200 W.Va. 667, 682, 490 S.E.2d 754, 769 (1997), that there are four steps to determining if a claim is barred by the statute of limitation. The first step in analyzing any statute of limitation question is to determine the applicable statute. In this case, W.Va.Code, 552-12 mandated an action for the injury be filed within two years. The second step in evaluating a statute of limitation question is to establish when the requisite elements of the alleged tort occurred, such that the cause of action `accrued.' Keesecker, 200 W.Va. at 683, 490 S.E.2d at 770. In this case, the cause of action accrued on the night of the fire, March 25, 1998. The next step is to determine whether the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of the ameliorative effects of the discovery rule. Id. The discovery rule tolls the statute of limitation until the claimant knows or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should know of his claim. Whether the discovery rule applies is determined, in tort actions, by the application of Syllabus Point 4 of Gaither v. City Hospital, Inc., 199 W.Va. 706, 487 S.E.2d 901 (1997). [4] We stated that this rule tolls the statute of limitations until a plaintiff, acting as a reasonable, diligent person, discovers the essential elements of a possible cause of action, that is, discovers duty, breach, causation and injury. Id., 199 W.Va. at 714, 487 S.E.2d at 909. If the plaintiff is not entitled to the ameliorative effects of the discovery rule, then [t]he last step in the statute of limitations analysis is to determine if the limitation period is tolled by some misconduct of the defendant. Keesecker, 200 W.Va. at 684, 490 S.E.2d at 771. [5] The appellants assert that they did not know the identity of the tortfeasor  Chemetronics  until October 2001, and therefore could not have brought suit until that identity was discovered through reasonable diligence. However, applying the third and fourth steps of Keesecker, it is clear that the Bennetts cannot benefit from the discovery rule in their claims against Chemetronics. The record shows that during discovery in June 2000, the Bennetts were given documents that identified Chemetronics as being involved with the manufacture of the heat sensors. The appellants' experts identified the heat sensors as a potential source of the malfunction of the alarm system. The Bennetts therefore should have reasonably known in June 2000  and not in October 2001  through due diligence that Chemetronics was the manufacturer of the heat sensors, and that the heat sensors may have malfunctioned and allowed the fire to destroy their home. Moreover, there is nothing in the record to suggest misconduct on the part of Chemetronics to conceal their identity or their misconduct. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled to the protection of the discovery rule. We would affirm the circuit court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Chemetronics.