After the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals. 227 S.W.3d 51,172 O.&G.R. 755 (2007), the Court of Appeals re-visited the issue of whether Bennett's quantum meruit claim was timely filed. Quigley argues that the informal, oral agreement to pay for Bennett's services occurred, if at all, in April 1997 and since this action was not filed until February 2002, the four-year statute of limitations for quantum meruit claims had expired. Bennett asserts both the discovery rule and the fraudulent concealment doctrine in order to avoid the limitations defense. The discovery rule operates to defer the time at which the cause of action initially accrues until such time as the plaintiff knew, or should have known, of the facts giving rise to the cause of action. The discovery rule only applies where the nature of the injury incurred is inherently undiscoverable and the evidence of the injury is objectively verifiable. The fraudulent concealment rule deferns the accrual or running of the statute of limitations until such time as plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the deceitful conduct or facts. The undisputed facts show that the last day that Bennett provided services to Quigley was in April 1997. There is nothing inherently undiscoverable about the value of Bennett's services once they were rendered. Therefore the discovery rule does not apply. Likewise, as to the fraudulent concealment doctrine, the jury did not find that there was such a concealment. Therefore, the quantum meruit claim is barred by the statute of limitations.
展开▼
机译：最高法院将案件退还上诉法院后。 227 S.W. 3d 51,172 O.＆G.R。 755（2007），上诉法院重新审视了贝内特的量子功绩索赔是否及时提起的问题。 Quigley辩称，为支付Bennett的服务而进行的非正式口头协议（如果有的话）发生于1997年4月，并且由于这项诉讼直到2002年2月才提起，因此四年的量子功绩索赔时效规约已经到期。 Bennett主张发现规则和欺诈性隐瞒学说，以避免限制辩护。发现规则的作用是将诉讼因由最初产生的时间推迟到原告知道或应该知道引起诉讼因由的事实之时。发现规则仅适用于所遭受的伤害的性质在本质上是无法发现且伤害的证据可以客观验证的情况。欺诈性的隐瞒规则推迟了时效法规的产生或生效，直到原告发现或应该已经发现欺诈行为或事实。无可争议的事实表明，贝内特向奎格利提供服务的最后一天是1997年4月。一旦提供，贝内特的服务的价值就不会产生内在的发现。因此，发现规则不适用。同样，关于欺诈性的隐瞒学说，陪审团也没有发现存在这种隐瞒。因此，量子律主张被限制法规所禁止。
展开▼
