Coleman v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLC

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the lower court erred in granting summary judgment on the statute of limitations when genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the plaintiff’s notice of the wrongful acts leading to the cause of action
• holding that “[i]gnorance of the cause of action will not toll the statute, absent concealment or fraud, or unless the injury is inherently unknowable and the claimant is blamelessly ignorant of the wrongful act and the injury complained of.”
• noting that Delaware courts have found inherently unknowable injuries in cases claiming accounting malpractice “because of the special character of the relationship between the professional and the client, and the inability of a layperson to detect the professional’s negligence”
• reversing trial court’s grant of summary judgment based on the statute of limitations because “there was no ‘red flag’ that clearly and unmistakably would have led a prudent person of ordinary intelligence” to make inquiry
• “The application of [the discovery] rule is necessarily based on the facts of each case.”
• “Ignorance of the cause of action will not toll the statute . . . unless the injury is inherently unknowable and the claimant is blamelessly ignorant of the wrongful act and the injury complained of.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).