North Carolina § 1-15 - Statute runs from accrual of action.

§ 1-15. Statute runs from accrual of action.

Civil actions can only be commenced within the periods prescribed in this Chapter, after the cause of action has accrued, except where in special cases a different limitation is prescribed by statute. Repealed by Session Laws 1979, c. 654, s. 3. Except where otherwise provided by statute, a cause of action for malpractice arising out of the performance of or failure to perform professional services shall be deemed to accrue at the time of the occurrence of the last act of the defendant giving rise to the cause of action: Provided that whenever there is bodily injury to the person, economic or monetary loss, or a defect in or damage to property which originates under circumstances making the injury, loss, defect or damage not readily apparent to the claimant at the time of its origin, and the injury, loss, defect or damage is discovered or should reasonably be discovered by the claimant two or more years after the occurrence of the last act of the defendant giving rise to the cause of action, suit must be commenced within one year from the date discovery is made: Provided nothing herein shall be construed to reduce the statute of limitation in any such case below three years. Provided further, that in no event shall an action be commenced more than four years from the last act of the defendant giving rise to the cause of action: Provided further, that where damages are sought by reason of a foreign object, which has no therapeutic or diagnostic purpose or effect, having been left in the body, a person seeking damages for malpractice may commence an action therefor within one year after discovery thereof as hereinabove provided, but in no event may the action be commenced more than 10 years from the last act of the defendant giving rise to the cause of action. History (C.C.P., s. 17; Code, s. 138; Rev., s. 360; C.S., s. 405; 1967, c. 954, s. 3; 1971, c. 1157, s. 1; 1975, 2nd Sess., c. 977, ss. 1, 2; 1979, c. 654, s. 3.) Cross References. - For provision covering subject matter similar to that of repealed subsection (b) of this section, which related to accrual of causes of action for personal injury or physical damage to property in cases other than those covered by subsection (c) of this section, see G.S. 1-52(16) . As to pleading of affirmative defenses, including statute of limitations, see G.S. 1A-1 , Rule 8. As to the three-year limitations period during which any governmental agency entering into a contract which is or has been the subject of a conspiracy prohibited by G.S. 75-1 or G.S. 75-2 shall have a right of action for damages, see G.S. 133-28 . Legal Periodicals. - For case law survey as to replies and pleadings of statute of limitations, see 45 N.C.L. Rev. 829 (1967). For note on when a cause of action accrues for limitations purposes in medical malpractice - the discovery rule, see 6 Wake Forest Intra. L. Rev. 532 (1970). For article, "Statutes of Limitations in the Conflict of Laws," see 52 N.C.L. Rev. 489 (1974). For comment, "Medical Malpractice in North Carolina," see 54 N.C.L. Rev. 1214 (1976). For survey of 1976 case law on torts, see 55 N.C.L. Rev. 1088 (1977). For note on the interaction between North Carolina's wrongful death statute and its statute of limitations for not readily apparent personal injuries or product defects, see 13 Wake Forest L. Rev. 543 (1977). For survey of 1978 law on taxation, see 57 N.C.L. Rev. 1142 (1979). For survey of 1982 law relating to constitutional law, see 61 N.C.L. Rev. 1052 (1983). For survey of 1982 law on torts, see 61 N.C.L. Rev. 1225 (1983). For note on statute of limitations accrual in attorney malpractice actions, in light of Thorpe v. DeMent, 69 N.C. App. 355, 317 S.E.2d 692, aff'd per curiam, 312 N.C. 488 , 322 S.E.2d 777 (1984), see 20 Wake Forest L. Rev. 1017 (1984). For note, "Black v. Littlejohn: A New Discovery Formula for Non-apparent Injuries Under the Professional Malpractice Statute of Limitations," see 64 N.C.L. Rev. 1438 (1986). For article, "The American Medical Association vs. The American Tort System," see 8 Campbell L. Rev. 241 (1986). For survey of North Carolina construction law, with particular reference to statutes of limitation and repose, see 21 Wake Forest L. Rev. 633 (1986). For note, "Stallings v. Gunter: The North Carolina Court of Appeals Bids Farewell to the Medical Malpractice Statute of Repose," see 69 N.C.L. Rev. 1399 (1991). For comment, "Adult Survivors of Childhood Sexual Abuse and Statutes of Limitations: A Call for Legislative Action," see 26 Wake Forest L. Rev. 1245 (1991). For article, "The Learned Profession Exemption of the North Carolina Deceptive Trade Practices Act: The Wrong Bright Line?," see 15 Campbell L. Rev. 223 (1993). For survey, "Let Truth Be Their Devise: Hargett v. Holland and the Professional Malpractice Statute of Repose," see 73 N.C.L. Rev. 2209 (1995). For note, "Do You Need 'Will Insurance?' Let the Testator Beware - Hargett v. Holland," see 21 N.C. Cent. L.J. 353 (1995). For comment, "Creating the Legal Monster: The Expansion and Effect of Legal Malpractice Liability in North Carolina", see 18 Campbell L. Rev. 121 (1996). For note, "Rule 9(j) - Is Requiring a Plaintiff in a Medical Malpractice Action to Certify His or Her Claim Before Filing Unconstitutional? - The Issue in Anderson v. Assimos," 25 Campbell L. Rev. 219 (2003).