PJC Business

F RAUD AND N EGLIGENT M ISREPRESENTATION

PJC 105.5

PJC 105.5 Question on Statute of Limitations—Common-Law Fraud If you answered “Yes” to Question ______ [ 105.1 ], then answer the follow ing question. Otherwise, do not answer the following question. QUESTION ______ By what date should Paul Payne , in the exercise of reasonable diligence,

have discovered the fraud of Don Davis ? Answer with a date in the blank below. Answer: _______________

COMMENT When to use. PJC 105.5 is to be used to determine if a cause of action for com mon-law fraud is barred by the statute of limitations. Actions for fraud are governed by a four-year limitations period. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.004(a)(4). Broad-form submission. PJC 105.5 is a broad-form question designed to be accompanied by one or more appropriate instructions. Tex. R. Civ. P. 277 requires that “the court shall, whenever feasible, submit the cause upon broad-form questions.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 277; see Thota v. Young , 366 S.W.3d 678, 689 (Tex. 2012) (rule 277’s use of “whenever feasible” mandates broad-form submission in any or every instance in which it is capable of being accomplished). For further discussion, see PJC 116.2 regarding broad-form issues and the Casteel doctrine. Source of question. PJC 105.5 is derived from ExxonMobil Corp. v. Lazy R Ranch, LP , 511 S.W.3d 538, 544 n.21 (Tex. 2017) (citing KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison County Housing Finance Corp. , 988 S.W.2d 746, 750 (Tex. 1999)), and Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc. , 918 S.W.2d 453, 456 (Tex. 1994). Continuing fraud. In a case involving continuing fraud resulting in a continuing or ongoing injury, PJC 105.5 may need to be modified to ask when the plaintiff should have discovered the latest fraudulent act. See PJC 102.23 and its Comment. Distinct damages claims. If the plaintiff has two claims involving distinctly dif ferent conduct and the limitations defense is raised, the Committee recommends that separate liability, damages, and limitations questions be submitted. Caveat. The supreme court has identified two doctrines that may toll limitations or delay accrual of a cause of action: (1) the discovery rule and (2) fraudulent conceal ment. Valdez v. Hollenbeck , 465 S.W.3d 217, 229 (Tex. 2015). In cases involving

241