Texas recognizes a similar tolling principle for state statutes of limitation based on a state class action lawsuit involving property damage claims. Bell v. Showa Denko K.K., 899 S.W.2d 749, 757-58 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1995, writ denied) (citing Grant v. Austin Bridge Constr. Co., 725 S.W.2d 366 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ)). State statutes of limitation are not tolled, however, based on a federal class action lawsuit involving personal injury claims.
However, the Texas courts have not extended this holding to allow a federal class action to toll a state statute of limitations. See Bell v. Showa Denko K.K., 899 S.W.2d 749, 757-58 (Tex.App. 1995) (refusing to apply American Pipe tolling to a state law mass personal injury suit based on a federal class action). The court in Bell distinguished the decision in Grant in part by noting that the state rules for tolling are based on state, not federal, law.
Hoover, 835 S.W.2d at 672-73 (quoting Citizens State Bank v. Shapiro, 575 S.W.2d 375, 385 (Tex.Ct.App. 1978, error refused nre)). As held in the controlling case for purposes of this appeal, Bell v. Showa Denko K.K., 899 S.W.2d 749, 754 (Tex.Ct.App. 1995, error denied) this is because the discovery rule "mandates that the plaintiff exercise reasonable diligence to discover facts of negligence or omission".
The pertinent issue in Vaught was whether under Texas law, the American Pipe tolling rule applies to mass personal injury suits. Like this court, the Vaught court looked to Texas law, specifically Bell v. Showa Denko K.K., 899 S.W.2d 749 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1995, writ denied), to determine if a mass personal injury class action tolls the statute of limitations for the putative class members. Unlike this court, the Vaught court held that, pursuant to Bell, " the Rapoport [mass personal injury class] actions did not toll the limitations period for the Vaughts [the putative class members]."
Several courts have found this distinction persuasive. In Bell v. Showa Denko K.K., 899 S.W.2d 749 (Tex. App. 1995), a Texas court declined to extend its existing class action tolling rule to a personal injury class action suit, concluding that the distinction between personal injury class actions and other class actions "is important in determining whether the defendants have received fair notice of the existence of a claim by the filing of a class suit," especially given "the variety of claims necessarily involved in [personal injury cases]." Bell, 899 S.W.2d at 758.
g of a putative class-action suit in a Texas state court suspends the running of limitations for all purported members of the class" under doctrine "commonly known as American Pipe tolling" and applying that doctrine to claims in case); All Am. Life & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Vandeventer , No. 02-05-00016-CV, 2006 WL 742452, at *2 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth Mar. 23, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.) (discussing how all "parties agree that ... the running of limitations was tolled when" class action was filed); Ventura v. Banales , 905 S.W.2d 423, 425 n.2 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1995, orig. proceeding) (recognizing that like federal courts "Texas likewise suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all purported members of the class upon the filing of the class action, such that any time remaining on the statute of limitations of the class members' individual causes of action on the date of the filing of the lawsuit is restored and begins to run again on the date the class action is dismissed"); Bell v. Showa Denko K.K. , 899 S.W.2d 749, 757 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 1995, writ denied) (noting that appellate courts have held that tolling applies when "the decision of whether a class was entitled to certification" was pending); Koch Oil Co. v. Wilber , 895 S.W.2d 854, 863 (Tex. App.–Beaumont 1995, writ denied) (observing that "statute of limitations was ... tolled subsequent to" filing of class action); Bara v. Major Funding Corp. Liquidating Trust , 876 S.W.2d 469, 471–73 (Tex. App.–Austin 1994, writ denied) (explaining that "interests presented" in suit by attorney general "in the public interest" were "closely akin to the interests presented in a class action litigation," stating that "class actions have been held to toll the statute of limitations when a class was decertified or if class members decided to opt out because strict application of the statute of limitations in these circumstances would be inequitable," applying tolling doctrine from American Pipe to claims from homeowners who filed their own suit after rejecting settlement offer obtained by attorney
Id. at 548-49. A defendant must disprove, as a matter of law, at least one of the essential elements of each of the plaintiff's causes of action, or it must establish one or more of its defenses as a matter of law. Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Perez, 819 S.W.2d 470, 471 (Tex. 1991); Bell v. Showa Denko K.K., 899 S.W.2d 749, 752 (Tex.App — Amarillo 1995, writ denied). When defendants as movants rely on the affirmative defense of the running of limitations, as they do in this case, they must establish when the cause or causes of action accrued and must negate the discovery rule by proving as a matter of law that there is no genuine issue of fact about when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered in the exercise of reasonable diligence, the elements of his cause of action, or stated another way, the nature of his injury.
Vaught v. Showa Denko K.K., 107 F.3d 1137, 1140 (5th Cir. 1997). In support of this conclusion, the court cites Bell v. Showa Denko K.K., 899 S.W.2d 749, 754 (Tex. App."Amarillo 1995, writ denied), and Vaught, 107 F.3d at 1142. HOC urges us to adopt this reasoning.
Vaught v. Showa Denko K.K., 107 F.3d 1137, 1140 (5th Cir. 1997). In support of this conclusion, the court cites Bell v. Showa Denko K.K., 899 S.W.2d 749, 754 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1995, writ denied), and Vaught, 107 F.3d at 1142. HOC urges us to adopt this reasoning.
In Bell v. Showa Denko K.K., 899 S.W.2d 749 (Tex. App. 1995), the Texas court similarly held that a claim accrued when the plaintiff “knew of her injury and associated it with” ingestion of a tainted product. 899 S.W.2d at 755