Opinion ID: 2394603
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Matters of Law

Text: Having determined that the jury properly found that appellant knew or should have known of her injury on October 28, 1998, we now turn to the Court's application of the law to that factual finding. Maryland law provides that [a] civil action at law shall be filed within three years from the date it accrues unless another provision of the Code provides a different period of time within which an action shall be commenced. Md.Code (1973, 2006 Repl.Vol.), § 5-101 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article. This statute of limitations is meant to promote the interests of fairness and judicial economy by allowing adequate time for a person of ordinary diligence to bring an action, while providing potential defendants with a degree of repose. Frederick Rd., 360 Md. at 94, 756 A.2d at 973. This Court has adopted the discovery rule as a means of determining when the claim begins to accrue for purposes of the statute of limitations. Id. at 95, 756 A.2d at 973. Out of fairness to potential plaintiffs, the discovery rule tolls the accrual of the limitations period until the time the plaintiff discovers, or through the exercise of due diligence, should have discovered, the injury. Id. at 95-96, 756 A.2d at 973. In Maryland, there are several exceptions to the discovery rule, including the continuation of events theory, Dual Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 383 Md. 151, 173, 857 A.2d 1095, 1107 (2004), and the continuing harm theory, see Shell Oil Co. v. Parker, 265 Md. 631, 636, 291 A.2d 64, 67 (1972). Appellant argues that the Court erred when it granted a JNOV, because either the continuation of events theory or the continuing harm theory should apply, and toll the statute of limitations. We hold that appellant's claim is barred by the statute of limitations because, as a matter of law, there was no fiduciary relationship that would trigger the application of the continuation of events rule, nor does the continuing harm rule apply, because the jury did not determine that there were ongoing violations, rather than merely continuing ill effects of a single earlier act.