Court Opinion

ID: 9853605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:51:01.69438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:55.485568
License: Public Domain

Farris, C.J.
John Eckert and Agnes Eckert, husband and wife, appeal from an order dismissing an action for unjust enrichment.
While employed at Skagit Corporation as a machinist, John Eckert developed on his own time a device known as a micrometer caliper attachment. Approximately 18 years prior to filing the complaint, Eckert consented to Skagit's use of the device and Skagit has been using it since that time. Eckert alleges that the use has resulted in substantial cost savings to Skagit and that Skagit, not having compensated him for the use, has been unjustly enriched. The trial court ruled that Eckert's claim was barred by the statute of limitations and by the doctrine of laches.
The 3-year statute of limitations applicable to actions on unwritten contracts, RCW 4.16.080(3), applies to an action for unjust enrichment. Geranios v. Annex Inv., Inc. 45 Wn.2d 233, 273 P.2d 793 (1954); see Dam v. General Elec. Co., 265 F.2d 612 (9th Cir. 1958). The complaint alleges that Eckert allowed Skagit to use the micrometer caliper attachment and to benefit from such use for 18 years before instituting suit. On appeal, Eckert argues (1) that his cause of action did not accrue more than 3 years before the complaint was filed, and (2) that even if the action did accrue earlier, it is based upon a continuing *851wrong for which he may recover damages sustained during the 3-year period preceding the filing of the complaint.
Generally, a cause of action accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run when a party has the right to apply to a court for relief. Haslund v. Seattle, 86 Wn.2d 607, 547 P.2d 1221 (1976). An action for unjust enrichment lies in a promise implied by law that one will render to the person entitled thereto that which in equity and good conscience belongs to that person. Hedin v. Roberts, 16 Wn. App. 740, 559 P.2d 1001 (1977). The promise to pay, implied by law, is the promise that was broken. While the record does not reflect the precise time of the "breach," it is clear that the fact that Eckert had not been compensated was susceptible of proof during the first 3 years of Skagit's use of Eckert's invention. The cause of action fully matured at that time. More than 3 years passed between the breach and the commencement of this lawsuit.
Eckert argues in the alternative that a continuing use is a continuing wrong and that although he may be barred from recovery for periods prior to the 3 years antedating the filing of suit, he is not cut off from pursuing his claim for damages for use during the statutory period immediately preceding the filing of suit. The "continuing claim" theory is supported by some cases involving the misappropriation of trade secrets.1 See Underwater Storage, Inc. v. United States Rubber Co., 371 F.2d 950 (D.C. Cir. 1966) and Koehring Co. v. National Automatic Tool Co., 257 F. Supp. 282 (S.D. Ind. 1966). Here, however, there is no misappropriation or other wrong sounding in tort. The complaint alleges:
10. That defendant acquired the device approximately eighteen years ago, by mutual consent of the parties, and has used it since without compensating plaintiff.
*852(Italics ours.) Eckert does not claim to have withdrawn his consent. Thus, the cause of action arose, if ever, when Skagit first made use of the device. The statute of limitations had not been effectively tolled within 3 years of that date; Eckert's claim is barred by RCW 4.16.080(3).
Our holding makes it unnecessary to consider whether the action is also barred by laches.
Affirmed.
Callow, J., concurs.

The majority of courts, however, have rejected the theory on the ground that the core of a claim for misuse of trade secrets is not the adverse use of the inventor's "property," but the initial rupture of the confidential relationship between the parties. See Monolith Portland Midwest Co. v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp., 407 F.2d 288 (9th Cir. 1969) and M & T Chem., Inc. v. International Business Mach. Corp. 403 F. Supp. 1145 (S.D.N.Y. 1975).