Statute of Limitations
A statute that bars a cause of action after a specified period from accrual. Texas limitations periods are codified principally in Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ch. 16: 2 years (most torts, DTPA, wrongful death), 4 years (contracts, fraud, real property), 5 years (specific actions). The discovery rule may toll accrual in specific contexts. Distinct from statutes of repose (fixed external event regardless of accrual). Multiple tolling and exception doctrines apply.
A statute of limitations is a statute that bars a cause of action after a specified period from accrual. The doctrine serves multiple purposes: providing finality and repose, requiring prompt pursuit of claims while evidence is fresh, and protecting defendants from stale claims. Texas limitations periods are codified principally in Chapter 16 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, with cause-specific periods ranging from one year (defamation) to ten years (judgments). Limitations is a defense, the defendant must affirmatively plead and prove it.
Common limitations periods
Frequently encountered Texas limitations periods: (1) 1 year, defamation (libel and slander); malicious prosecution; (2) 2 years, most torts (negligence, trespass, conversion, intentional torts); wrongful death; survival claims; DTPA (separate § 17.565); (3) 4 years, contracts (oral and written); fraud; real property recovery; debt; usury (special); breach of fiduciary duty; (4) 5 years, adverse possession (specific scenarios); (5) 10 years, judgments (renewal required to extend); adverse possession (other scenarios). The rule of thumb: torts run 2 years, contracts run 4 years, with significant exceptions in both directions.
Accrual, when the clock starts
Limitations runs from accrual, the date the cause of action accrues. Default rule: a cause of action accrues when "facts come into existence which authorize a claimant to seek a judicial remedy" (Computer Associates v. Altai). Specific accrual rules: (1) contract claims, accrue at breach; (2) tort claims, accrue at injury; (3) fraud claims, accrue at the fraudulent act, but discovery rule typically applies; (4) continuing torts, accrue at each occurrence; (5) installment contracts, separate accrual for each missed installment, unless acceleration. Accrual analysis is fact-specific; sophisticated parties dispute accrual dates frequently.
The discovery rule
The discovery rule tolls accrual until the plaintiff knows or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known of the injury and its cause. Texas applies the discovery rule selectively, not to all causes of action but to specific categories where the injury is inherently undiscoverable: (1) medical malpractice; (2) fraud (where the defendant concealed the wrongdoing); (3) fiduciary breach in some contexts; (4) certain professional negligence. The discovery rule does not generally apply to ordinary contract or tort claims with overt injuries. Plaintiffs invoking the discovery rule bear the burden of pleading and proving the elements.
Fraudulent concealment
Fraudulent concealment is a related but distinct doctrine: where the defendant knew of the wrongdoing and concealed it, limitations is tolled until the plaintiff discovers (or should have discovered) the wrongdoing. Unlike the discovery rule (which is a substantive accrual rule), fraudulent concealment is an equitable estoppel doctrine. S.V. v. R.V. (Tex. 1996) is the foundational case. Elements: (1) defendant's actual knowledge of the wrong; (2) duty to disclose; (3) fixed purpose to conceal; (4) actual concealment. Plaintiffs invoke fraudulent concealment to defeat limitations defenses where their claim was timely-filed but for the concealment.
Tolling and exceptions
Multiple Texas tolling doctrines: (1) plaintiff's disability, minority, mental incapacity (§ 16.001); (2) defendant's absence from state, § 16.063; (3) counterclaim tolling, § 16.069 (counterclaims arising from same transaction tolled by main claim filing); (4) fraudulent concealment, equitable estoppel; (5) continuing tort, accrual restarts at each new occurrence; (6) contractual extension, parties may sometimes extend limitations by agreement; (7) court-ordered tolling in bankruptcy and similar contexts. Each tolling doctrine has specific elements and limits.
Limitations vs. repose
Statutes of limitations and statutes of repose are distinct: (1) limitations runs from accrual (when the cause of action arose); subject to discovery rule and tolling doctrines; affects the remedy. (2) repose runs from a fixed external event (substantial completion of construction, sale of product); not subject to discovery rule or most tolling; extinguishes the underlying right. See Statute of Repose. Repose periods are typically longer than limitations but provide an absolute outer boundary.
Limitations as affirmative defense
Limitations is an affirmative defense, the defendant must plead it specifically (Tex. R. Civ. P. 94) and prove its elements. The plaintiff bears no initial burden to establish timeliness; once the defendant pleads limitations, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish (a) timely filing, (b) applicability of a tolling doctrine, or (c) inapplicability of the asserted limitations period. Failure to plead limitations waives the defense; subsequent motions for summary judgment or dismissal cannot restore a waived defense.
For Texas commercial parties, limitations is among the most common defenses raised in commercial litigation. Best practice for plaintiffs: (1) calendar limitations dates from accrual, with substantial buffer (file 6+ months before expiration where possible); (2) for ambiguous accrual, file early and litigate the date later; (3) preserve discovery-rule and fraudulent-concealment evidence contemporaneously; (4) consider counterclaim tolling for cross-claims arising from the same transaction. For defendants: (1) plead limitations promptly under Rule 94; (2) build limitations defenses with specific accrual dates and supporting documents; (3) raise the affirmative defense in summary-judgment proceedings to test enforceability; (4) for repeat-pattern defendants, develop standardized limitations analysis frameworks. The single most common cause of malpractice claims against plaintiff-side counsel: missed limitations deadlines. Calendaring discipline is foundational.