The discovery rule defers accrual of a claim until the injured party discovered, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the nature of the party's injury and the likelihood that the injury was caused by the wrongful acts of another. SeeCosgrove , 468 S.W.3d at 36 ; Childs v. Haussecker , 974 S.W.2d 31, 36, 40 (Tex. 1998) ; B. Mahler Interests, L.P. v. DMAC Constr., Inc. , 503 S.W.3d 43, 49 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.). The rule expressly requires a plaintiff to use reasonable diligence to investigate the nature of the injury and its likely cause once the plaintiff is apprised of facts that would make a reasonably diligent person seek information.

Put simply, the discovery rule permits plaintiffs to sue after the two-year limitations period if they could not have discovered their injuries (with reasonable diligence) within that period. Childs v. Haussecker , 974 S.W.2d 31, 40 (Tex. 1998). In other words, "the discovery rule delays accrual [of a resultant cause of action] until the plaintiff knew[,] or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known[,] of the wrongful act and resulting injury."

When the plaintiff pleads the discovery rule, the defendant has the burden to negate the discovery rule by establishing as a matter of law no genuine issue of material fact exists regarding when the plaintiff became aware, or should have become aware, of his injury. SeeChilds v. Haussecker , 974 S.W.2d 31, 40 (Tex. 1998). "The evidence raises a genuine issue of fact if reasonable and fair-minded jurors could differ in their conclusions in light of all of the summary-judgment evidence."

A cause of action generally accrues when an injury results from a wrongful act, regardless of when the plaintiff learns of his injury. Childs v. Haussecker, 974 S.W.2d 31, 36 (Tex. 1998). However, in those rare cases when the nature of the injury is inherently undiscoverable and evidence of the injury is objectively verifiable, the courts have crafted the discovery rule as an exception to the general accrual rule.

The discovery rule is the legal principle which, when applicable, provides that limitations run from the date the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered, in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence, the nature of the injury. SeeChilds v. Haussecker, 974 S.W.2d 31, 40 (Tex. 1998); Willis, 760 S.W.2d at 644. Discovering the "nature of the injury" requires knowledge of the wrongful act and the resulting injury.

Colonial Penn Ins. v. Mkt. Planners Ins. Agency, Inc., 157 F.3d 1032, 1034 (5th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although issues regarding the discovery rule generally involve issues of fact for a jury, it may be determined as a matter of law if reasonable minds could not differ. Childs v. Haussecker, 974 S.W.2d 31, 44 (Tex. 1998). Under Texas law, the defendant bears the burden of negating the discovery rule on summary judgment.

A defendant who moves for summary judgment based upon limitations bears the burden of negating the discovery rule at the summary judgment stage. Childs v. Haussecker, 974 S.W.2d 31, 40 (Tex. 1998); Woods v. William M. Mercer, Inc., 769 S.W.2d 515, 518 n. 2 (Tex. 1988). Typically, inquiries involving the discovery rule raise questions to be decided by the trier of fact, although the trial court may determine the commencement of limitations as a matter of law if reasonable minds could not differ about the conclusion to be drawn from the facts set forth in the record.

The defendant may do so by proving as a matter of law that there is no genuine issue of material fact about when the plaintiff discovered, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the wrongful act and resulting injury. See Childs v. Haussecker, 974 S.W.2d 31, 37 (Tex. 1998); Burns v. Thomas, 786 S.W.2d 266, 267 (Tex. 1990); Woods v. William M. Mercer, Inc., 769 S.W.2d 515, 518 n. 2 (Tex. 1988). If the movant establishes that the statute of limitations bars the action, the nonmovant must then adduce summary judgment proof raising a fact issue in avoidance of the statute of limitations.

Ordinarily, a claim "accrues," triggering the applicable statute of limitations, when a wrongful act causes an injury, even if the fact of the injury is not yet discovered and even if all resulting damages have not yet occurred. Childs v. Haussecker, 974 S.W.2d 31, 37 (Tex. 1998) Plaintiff relies on two limited exceptions that toll the statute of limitations: the discovery rule and the doctrine of fraudulent concealment. "Although similar in effect, the discovery rule exception and deferral based on fraud or concealment exist for different reasons."

Texas law provides that personal injury suits are to be commenced within two years after the date the cause of action accrues. Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 16.003(a); Childs v. Haussecker, 974 S.W.2d 31, 36 (Tex. 1998). The defendants contend the plaintiff's claims accrued more than two years prior to the date the case was filed.