pjc-oil-and-gas-2022-lib

D EFENSES

PJC 312.18

PJC 312.18 Question on Statute of Limitations—Discovery Rule QUESTION ______ By what date should Paul Payne , in the exercise of reasonable diligence, have discovered the [ event(s) giving rise to the plaintiff’s claim ]? Answer with a date in the blank below. Answer: _______________ COMMENT When to use. PJC 312.18 should be used when the discovery rule is submitted to the jury as a plea in confession and avoidance to a statute-of-limitations defense. The events that give rise to the plaintiff's claim may be either the conduct or the injury. See Exxon Corp. v. Emerald Oil & Gas Co. , 348 S.W.3d 194, 207 (Tex. 2011). If the dis covery rule is submitted in terms of the plaintiff's discovery of a wrongfully caused injury, it may be necessary to define “injury” and “wrongful acts”; otherwise, the jury might be impermissibly allowed to speculate on the meanings of those terms. Source of question. PJC 312.18 is derived from Willis v. Maverick , 760 S.W.2d 642, 647 (Tex. 1988), and Cosgrove v. Cade , 468 S.W.3d 32 (Tex. 2015). See also the current edition of State Bar of Texas, Texas Pattern Jury Charges—Business, Con sumer, Insurance & Employment PJC 102.23, 105.5. Application of the discovery rule. “The discovery rule applies ‘only when the nature of the plaintiff’s injury is both inherently undiscoverable and objectively verifi able.’” Shell Oil Co. v. Ross , 356 S.W.3d 924, 930 (Tex. 2011) (quoting Wagner & Brown, Ltd. v. Horwood , 58 S.W.3d 732, 734 (Tex. 2001)); see also HECI Exploration Co. v. Neel , 982 S.W.2d 881, 886 (Tex. 1998). “An injury is inherently undiscoverable if by its nature, it is ‘unlikely to be discovered within the prescribed limitations period despite due diligence.’” Ross , 356 S.W.3d at 930 (quoting S.V. v. R.V. , 933 S.W.2d 1, 7 (Tex. 1996)). “The legal question of whether an injury is inherently undiscoverable is determined on a categorical basis.” Ross , 356 S.W.3d at 930. See also Cosgrove , 468 S.W.3d at 36. For a question and instruction on reformation as an affirmative cause of action, see PJC 305.5. Distinct damages claims. If the plaintiff has multiple claims involving distinctly different conduct and the limitations defense is raised, the Committee recommends that separate liability, damages, and limitations questions be submitted.

211