Opinion ID: 1242865
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Reconciliation of casespolicy of this court's statute of limitations jurisprudence

Text: ¶ 54 One can find support for almost any position by reading the numerous statute of limitations cases decided by this court and the court of appeals. Different facts often lead to different results, depending on which facts are considered to be important or determinative. A reasonable degree of rationality and consistency can best be achieved, we believe, if our courts advert to the policy that should inform each decision. We recently described that policy in a contract case dealing with the discovery rule: The rationale behind the discovery rule is that it is unjust to deprive a plaintiff of a cause of action before the plaintiff has a reasonable basis for believing that a claim exists. This reasoning is perfectly consistent with the kinds of cases to which this and other courts have applied the rule:  A common thread seems to run through all the types of actions where courts have applied the discovery rule. The injury or the act causing the injury, or both, have been difficult for the plaintiff to detect. In most instances, in fact, the defendant has been in a far superior position to comprehend the act and the injury. And in many, the defendant had reason to believe the plaintiff remained ignorant he had been wronged. Thus, there is an underlying notion that plaintiffs should not suffer where circumstances prevent them from knowing they have been harmed. And often this is accompanied by the corollary notion that defendants should not be allowed to knowingly profit from their injuree's ignorance.    In our view, the important inquiry in applying the discovery rule is whether the plaintiff's injury or the conduct causing the injury is difficult for plaintiff to detect, not whether the action sounds in contract or in tort. ... The defense of statute of limitations is never favored by the courts, and if there is doubt as to which of two limitations periods should apply, courts generally apply the longer.    However, whether a tort victim or a contract claimant, a blamelessly uninformed plaintiff cannot be said to have slept on his rights. Furthermore, the problems associated with stale litigation (e.g., failing memory, unavailable witnesses) are no more acute in contract claims than they are in tort. And in either case, the requirement that parties exercise reasonable diligence safeguards against cases where a plaintiff has truly allowed his claim to become stale. Gust, 182 Ariz. at 589-91, 898 P.2d at 966-69 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).