Statute of limitations: accrual, discovery, and tolling

Every claim has a clock. The hard part isn't the length — it's knowing when the clock started and what could have paused it.

The idea

A statute of limitations is a deadline: file within the window or the claim is barred, no matter how strong it is. Three questions decide the window. When did the clock start? (accrual — usually the harm, sometimes the day the injury was or should have been discovered.) Did anything pause it? (tolling — being a minor, a defendant hiding the wrong, an ongoing violation.) And which claim? — the same facts can support several claims, each with its own period.

Below, place the three events on the timeline, flip the tolling switches, and watch each claim turn within time or time-barred.

How it works

Run the analysis in order: fix accrual, add any tolling, then compare the deadline to the filing date.

deadline = accrual + limitations_period + tolling

accrual  = harm date            (most claims)
         = discovery date        (discovery-rule claims: fraud,
                                   latent injury, malpractice)
tolling += years of minority     (clock paused until majority)
         + concealment period    (paused from harm to discovery)
continuing violation: each fresh act restarts the clock

within time  if  filing date <= deadline
time-barred  if  filing date >  deadline

worked (harm=Yr2, discovered=Yr6, filed=Yr9):
  fraud       3yr, from discovery:  6 + 3      = Yr9  -> filed 9 <= 9   within time
  injury      2yr, from harm:       2 + 2      = Yr4  -> filed 9 >  4   time-barred
  ...add minority tolling (+5yr):   2 + 2 + 5  = Yr9  -> filed 9 <= 9   revived

Minority tolling is shown here as an illustrative fixed pause; in practice it runs until the plaintiff reaches the age of majority, so its length depends on the plaintiff's age.

When to use it

Situation	What the analysis tells you
Deciding whether a claim can still be filed	Whether the window is open, and by how much margin
Latent injuries or hidden fraud	Whether the discovery rule delayed accrual past the harm date
Plaintiff was young, or the defendant hid the wrong	Whether tolling paused the clock and revived a claim
Several theories from one set of facts	Which claims remain alive — you plead the timely ones
Trade-off / limit	Statutes of repose set a hard outer cap that discovery and tolling usually cannot extend — a different creature from limitations

Watch out for

• Assuming accrual is the harm date. For discovery-rule claims the clock starts when the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known of the injury and its cause — not when they actually found out, and not necessarily the day of the harm.
• Confusing limitations with repose. A statute of repose runs from a fixed event (a sale, a completed construction) and cuts off the claim even if it hasn't been discovered. Tolling and the discovery rule generally don't lift it.
• Forgetting that tolling ends. Minority tolling stops at majority; concealment tolling stops once the fraud is discovered. The clock resumes — it isn't paused forever.
• Continuing violation vs. lingering effects. A genuinely repeated wrongful act restarts the clock; a single past act with ongoing consequences usually does not. Don't stretch the doctrine.
• One deadline for one set of facts. Contract, fraud, and negligence from the same events carry different periods and accrual rules. Screen each separately — and remember filing date, not service date, stops the clock.

Worked example

An issue-spotting prompt: "A client learns in Year 6 that a product installed in Year 2 was defective and caused a slow-developing injury. They come to you in Year 9. Can they still sue?" A clean answer separates the threads. Negligence (harm-based, short period) likely accrued at installation and is probably barred by Year 9. But a latent-injury or fraud theory may follow the discovery rule, so its clock started around Year 6 and could still be open. Then flag tolling: was the plaintiff a minor when the product was installed? Did the manufacturer conceal the defect? Either could pause the clock and revive an otherwise-barred claim. You end by naming the repose cap and the need to confirm the actual periods in the governing jurisdiction — the examiner wants the structure, not a memorised number.

Check yourself