Court Opinion

ID: 9587077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:17:49.290295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:01.181602
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result of the majority opinion. I would, however, ground that result upon the statute of limitations, and would have no occasion then to consider the application of the doctrine of laches to these facts.
I recognize that, in tort cases, Wyoming has adopted the discovery rule for purposes of ascertaining when a cause of action accrues. Mills v. Garlow, 768 P.2d 554 (Wyo.1989); Ogle v. Caterpillar Tractor Company, 716 P.2d 334 (Wyo.1986); Young v. Young, 709 P.2d 1254 (Wyo.1985); Metzger v. Kalke, 709 P.2d 414 (Wyo.1985); Olson v. A.H. Robins Company, Inc., 696 P.2d 1294 (Wyo.1985); Duke v. Housen, 589 P.2d 334 (Wyo.1979), reh. denied 590 P.2d 1340, cert. denied 444 U.S. 863, 100 S.Ct. 132, 62 L.Ed.2d 86 (1979). The adoption of a discovery rule for purposes of determining when a tort action accrues does not necessarily mean that the discovery rule has been adopted for all purposes.
The general rule throughout the United States is that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach. Paul Holt Drilling, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 664 F.2d 252 (10th Cir.1981); Carman v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 748 P.2d 743 (Alaska 1988); Whorton v. Dillingham, 248 Cal.Rptr. 405, 202 Cal.App.3d 447 (1988); E.O.C. Ord, Inc. v. Kovakovich, 246 Cal.Rptr. 456, 200 Cal.App.3d 1194 (1988); Farmers National Bank v. Wickham Pipeline Construction, 114 Idaho 565, 759 P.2d 71 (1988); Welty v. Western Bank of Las Cruces, 106 N.M. 126, 740 P.2d 120 (1987); Koulis v. Standard Oil Company of California, 746 P.2d 1182 (Utah App.1987); Upland Industries Corporation v. Pacific Gamble Robinson Company, 684 P.2d 638 (Utah 1984). There are some limited exceptions to that general rule. One of those is the invocation of a discovery rule when the fact of the breach may occur in secret, and the information is not available to the other party to the contract. April Enterprises, Inc. v. KTTV, 195 Cal.Rptr. 421, 147 Cal.App.3d 805 (1983). See Yingling v. Phillips, 65 Md.App. 451, 501 A.2d 87 (1985). But see State v. Holland Plastics Company, 111 Wis.2d 497, 331 N.W.2d 320 (1983) (discovery rule not applicable in contract suit). The other exception is found in those instances in which there has occurred a fraudulent concealment of the breach of contract. L.C.L. Theatres, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 566 F.2d 494 (5th Cir.1978); Atlantic Richfield Company v. CRA, Inc., 430 F.Supp. 1299 (N.D.Tex.1975); Frank Cooke, Inc. v. Hurwitz, 10 Mass.App. 99, 406 N.E.2d 678 (1980). Cf. McCloskey v. Carlton Builders, 211 Cal.Rptr. 659, 165 Cal.App.3d 689 (1985) (fraudulent concealment applied in tort case); Skuffeeda v. St. Vincent Hospital and Medical Center, 77 Or.App. 477, 714 P.2d 235 (1986) (fraudulent concealment in medical malpractice suit). The facts of this case do not adapt to either of these exceptions.
I would apply the statute of limitations found in § 1-3-105, W.S.1977. There is no question that, if a breach of the Wolf Agreement occurred, it happened on May 11, 1973. The cause of action accrued more than ten years before the complaint was filed, and the district court correctly determined that it was barred by the statute of limitations. The action being barred by the statute of limitations, there is no necessity for invoking the doctrine of lach-es, and my view is that reliance upon the doctrine of laches when the statute of limitations governs the disposition of a case undermines the efficacy of the statute of limitations. We should refrain from doing that as a matter of judicial restraint.
*1029I would affirm the judgment, but for the reason stated.