N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(9) gives fraud and misrepresentation claims a three-year limitations period running from the act giving rise to the action, but the claim does not accrue until the aggrieved party discovers the facts constituting the fraud.

Cebula v. The Givens Estates, Inc. · filed 2014-07-15(9)

According to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(9), actions for fraud and misrepresentation must be brought within three years of the act giving rise to the action, with the plaintiff’s action not “deemed to have accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud.”

Under § 1-52(9), a fraud-or-mistake claim accrues when the aggrieved party actually learns of the facts or should have discovered them through due diligence; whether due diligence required discovery is ordinarily for the jury, and recordation alone does not trigger limitations as a matter of law.

Wells Fargo Bank · filed 2015-02-03(9)

For a claim based on fraud or mistake subject to section 1-52(9), “the cause of action shall not be deemed to have accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(9).

Section 1-52(1) imposes a three-year limitations period for unjust-enrichment and contract claims, while section 1-52(9) delays accrual for fraud- or mistake-based relief until the mistake is discovered or should have been discovered with reasonable diligence.

Lockerman v. S. River Elec. Membership Corp. · filed 2015-06-08(1), (9)

An unjust enrichment claim is governed by the three-year statute of limitations of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(1). ... For actions requesting relief on grounds of fraud or mistake, the statute of limitations begins to run at the time of discovery of the mistake by the aggrieved party—the so-called “discovery rule.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(9).

A fraud action has a three-year statute of limitations, accruing when the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the facts constituting the fraud.

THOMAS v. McMAHON · filed 2015-06-23(9)

The statute of limitations for actions for fraud is three years pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(9). A cause of action alleging fraud is deemed to accrue upon discovery by plaintiff of facts constituting the fraud. ‘Discovery’ is defined as actual-discovery or the time when the fraud should have been discovered in the exercise of due diligence.

For a fraud claim, § 1-52(9) makes the three-year limitations period run from when the aggrieved party discovers the facts constituting the fraud, including when the fraud should have been discovered through due diligence.

Ward v. Fogel · filed 2014-12-02(9)

Discovery is defined as actual discovery or the time when the fraud should have been discovered in the exercise of due diligence.

Section 1-52(1) gives breach-of-contract claims a three-year limitations period running from the breach, while § 1-52(9) gives fraud claims a three-year period that accrues upon actual or reasonably diligent discovery of the fraud.

Spoor v. Barth · filed 2016-01-05(1) and (9)

An action for fraud must be brought within three years as well. For fraud ... the fraud or mistake.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(9).

Section 1-52(b)(9) gives fraud-or-mistake claims a three-year limitations period, accruing when the injured party discovers the facts constituting the fraud or mistake.

Wilson v. SunTrust Bank · filed 2017-12-19(b)(9)

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(b)(9) (2016) establishes a three year statute of limitations for “relief on the ground of fraud or mistake” and specifies that “the cause of action shall not be deemed to have accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake.”

For fraud claims, the three-year limitations period under § 1-52(9) begins when the fraud is discovered, while the cause of action itself arises when the fraudulent conduct occurs.

Liner v. DiCresce · filed 1994-09-09(9)

A cause of action for fraud accrues, and the statute of limitations begins to run, according to N.C.Gen.Stat. § 1-52(9) when the fraud is discovered. However, it seems logical that a cause of action arises or springs up or originates whenever the events take place that give rise to the cause of action. As a consequence, a cause of action can arise when the fraudulent action takes place even though the cause of action may not accrue until the fraudulent action is discovered.

Section 1-52(5) gives actions based on an architect’s negligence a three-year limitations period, accruing when the plaintiff realizes or reasonably should have realized a resulting legal injury.

RPR & Associates v. O'Brien/Atkins Associates, P.A. · filed 1998-04-03(5)

North Carolina imposes a three year statute of limitations for actions based upon the negligence of an architect, N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-52(5); Quail Hollow East Condominium Assoc. v. Donald J. Scholz Co., 47 N.C.App. 518, 268 S.E.2d 12 (1980), including claims based upon negligent misrepresentations. See Barger v. McCoy Hillard & Parks, 346 N.C. 650, 488 S.E.2d 215 (1997). ... The statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiffs right to maintain an action accrues. ... The statute of limitations accrued when Plaintiff realized, or reasonably should have realized, a legal injury.

Section 1-52 imposes a three-year limitations period: negligent-construction claims based on physical property damage accrue when the damage becomes apparent or reasonably should have become apparent, while non-constructive-fraud fiduciary-duty claims are governed by the three-year contract limitations period.

Trillium Ridge Condominium Ass'n v. Trillium Links & Village, LLC · filed 2014-09-16(16), (1)

Negligent construction claims resulting from physical damage to the plaintiff’s property are subject to the three year statute of limitations set out in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(16), with such claims accruing when “bodily harm to the claimant or physical damage to his property becomes apparent or ought reasonably to have become apparent to the claimant, whichever event first occurs.”

Section 1-52(1) provides a three-year limitations period for breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims, while § 1-52(9) provides a three-year period for fraud claims that accrues upon discovery of the fraud.

SOFT LINE, S.P.A. v. ITALIAN HOMES, LLC · filed 2015-01-16(1), (9)

Typically, breaches of fiduciary duty are governed by the three-year statute of limitations contained in section 1-52(1). ... A fraud claim does not begin to accrue until discovery of the fraud. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(9).

Subsection (1) imposes a three-year limitations period on breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims, accruing when the wrongful act causes a direct injury even if the full extent of damage appears later.

Tong v. Dunn Powell v. Dunn · filed 2016-07-08(1)

Both North Carolina law and Delaware law apply a three-year statute of limitations to a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(1) (2015); Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 8106(a) (2015).

Section 1-52(1) imposes a three-year statute of limitations on breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims that do not rise to constructive fraud.

Preiss v. Wine and Design Franchise · filed 2018-09-24(1)

“Allegations of breach of fiduciary duty that do not rise to the level of constructive fraud are governed by the three-year statute of limitations applicable to contract actions contained in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(1) (2003).”

Section 1-52 supplies the limitations period for breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims that do not rise to constructive fraud; the court applied a three-year period.

BDM Invs. v. Lenhil, Inc. · filed 2019-03-19§ 1-52

Breach of fiduciary claims are subject to the statute of limitations found in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52 (2017).

The statute of limitations for a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim is three years, and whether the claim was filed late depended on disputed facts about when the plaintiffs knew or should have known the facts giving rise to it.

Bohn v. Black · filed 2019-06-03(1)

The statute of limitations for a claim for breach of fiduciary duty is three years. See, e.g., Toomer v. Branch Banking & Tr. Co., 171 N.C. App. 58, 66, 614 S.E.2d 328, 335 (2005) (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(1)). Having reviewed the record, the Court concludes that there are genuine disputes of fact as to whether the Bohns knew or should have known of the facts giving rise to their claim more than three years before filing this action.

Section 1-52(1) provides a three-year limitations period for breach-of-fiduciary-duty allegations that do not rise to constructive fraud.

Conleys Creek Ltd. P'ship v. Smoky Mountain Country Club Prop. Owners Ass'n · filed 2017-09-05(1)

three-year statute of limitations applicable to contract actions contained in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(1) (2003).

Section 1-52(9) imposes a three-year limitations period for fraud, duress, and undue influence, with fraud accruing when the facts constituting it are discovered.

Crogan v. Crogan · filed 2014-09-16(9)

According to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(9), the statute of limitations begins to run on an action for fraud upon discovery of the facts constituting the fraud.

Section 1-52(3) allows recovery for damages from an intermittent trespass occurring within the three years before the action is filed.

Vinal v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n · filed 2015-09-18(3)

Under North Carolina law, if damages are caused by an intermittent trespass, “a plaintiff may recover for any damages within three years before the action is filed.”

Under § 1-52(1), a claim to collect an unpaid debt is barred after three years.

Ekren v. K&E Real Estate Invs., LLC · filed 2015-11-12(1)

The Receiver contends that any claim NC Realty can bring to collect on this alleged debt is now barred by the three-year statute of limitations under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(1). The Court agrees and concludes that the Receiver properly rejected NC Realty’s claim against the Receivership Estate.

A breach-of-contract claim is subject to § 1-52(1)'s three-year statute of limitations, and the court applied that limitation period in evaluating when the claim accrued.

Scigrip, Inc. v. Osae · filed 2018-01-30(1)

A claim for breach of contract is subject to a three-year statute of limitations. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(1). A cause of action for breach of contract accrues upon notice of the breach.

Section 1-52(1) gives breach-of-contract claims a three-year limitations period, running from the breach.

Dunn Holdings I, Inc. v. Confluent Health, LLC · filed 2018-12-10(1)

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(1) requires that claims for breach of contract be filed within three years. The statute of limitations begins to run upon the breach of the contract.

Section 1-52 generally provides a three-year statute of limitations for professional-negligence claims.

Lamb v. Styles · filed 2019-02-05§ 1-52

Other professional negligence claims are subject to only a three-year statute of limitations pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52 (2017).

Section 1-52 imposes a three-year limitations period for constitutional and negligence claims; the period begins when the plaintiff is injured or discovers the injury, and exhaustion of administrative remedies did not toll it here.

Nanny's Korner Day Care Ctr. · filed 2019-02-19§ 1-52

The statute of limitations in North Carolina for both constitutional and negligence claims is three years. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52 (2017).

Section 1-52(5) gives tortious-interference claims a three-year limitations period, running from the date of the underlying injury.

N.C. Indian Cultural Ctr., Inc. v. Sanders · filed 2019-06-18(5)

A plaintiff seeking to recover damages or to obtain other relief for . . . tortious-interference with contract . . . must assert that claim within three years of the date upon which the underlying injury occurred.

The court held that Erdman's North Carolina contract claims were barred by § 1-52(1)'s three-year statute of limitations because the alleged breach occurred, and he knew of it, more than three years before suit.

Erdman v. Fleetcor Technologies, Inc. · filed 2020-06-03(1)

The district court correctly concluded that the three-year statute of limitations had expired by the time Erdman filed his claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Subsection (5) gives negligence claims a three-year limitations period, accruing when the injury occurs if the injury is then apparent.

Bobbitt v. Tannewitz · filed 1982-04-20(5)

Plaintiff’s negligence claim is subject to the three year statute of limitations contained in N.C.Gen.Stat. § 1-52(5). ... Plaintiff’s tort claim accrued on the date of his injury, which was apparent to him when it occurred.

Section 1-52(16) applies to latent personal injuries, but not to claims arising from disease unless the Legislature expressly expands the statute to include disease.

Stahle v. CTS Corporation · filed 2016-03-02(16)

Weighing these cases, we conclude that the Supreme Court of North Carolina considers Section 1-52(16) applicable only to latent injuries. Because North Carolina law clearly establishes that a disease is not a latent injury, Wilder, 336 S.E.2d at 70-71, we anticipate that the Supreme Court of North Carolina would not consider Section 1-52(16) applicable to Stahle’s disease claim.

Section 1-52(16) does not apply to claims arising out of a disease.

Dickerson v. CRC Industries, Inc. · filed 2025-07-16(16)

Therefore, where the Fourth Circuit has determined that §§ 1-50(6) and 1-52(16) do not apply to “claims arising out of disease,” Stahle, 817 F.3d at 100, and where plaintiff’s claims arise out of a disease, the statutes do not apply to plaintiff's claims.

Section 1-52(5) imposes a three-year limitations period on tortious-interference claims, measured from the underlying injury, and does not provide an express discovery rule for those claims.

Taidoc Tech. Corp. v. Ok Biotech Co., Ltd. · filed 2016-03-28(5)

North Carolina law is clear that a plaintiff seeking damages for tortious interference with contract or prospective economic advantage “must assert that claim within three years of the date upon which the underlying injury occurred.”

Subsection (16) gives negligence claims a three-year limitations period and, for latent injuries, delays accrual until the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know that an injury exists, not until the full extent of damage is known.

Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. v. Town of Lillington · filed 2020-07-06(16)

Thus, this negligence action is governed by the three-year statute of limitations set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(16).

Section 1-52(13)'s three-year period applies to an action against a public officer for a qualifying trespass under color of office, but it does not govern ADA claims that do not allege such a trespass.

Davis v. Blanchard · filed 2016-03-29(13)

His argument invokes the three-year statute of limitations for actions “[a]gainst a public officer, for a trespass, under color of his office.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(13). ... Consequently, the applicable statute of limitations for Plaintiffs ADA claims is two years.

Section 1-52(2) limits reimbursement for retroactive child support to expenditures made within three years before the filing of the action, but does not bar reimbursement for payments made after filing.

Smith v. Smith · filed 2016-04-19(2)

However, the limitation plaintiff is referencing only limits reimbursement to three years prior to the filing of the action. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(2) (2015). Since defendant filed her claim for retroactive child support on 19 June 2009, the statute of limitation has no application to payments defendant made after that date.

For fraud and negligent misrepresentation, the three-year limitations periods accrue upon discovery of the fraud or misrepresentation, with actual discovery or when the fraud should have been discovered through due diligence; whether reasonable diligence was exercised may present a fact question.

Vestlyn Bmp, LLC v. Balsam Mountain Grp., LLC · filed 2016-06-20(5) and (9)

These claims are "deemed to accrue upon discovery . . . of facts constituting the fraud," Carlisle v. Keith, 169 N.C. App. 674, 683, 614 S.E.2d 542, 548 (2005), or when "the claimant discovers the misrepresentation." Barger v. McCoy Hilliard & Parks, 346 N.C. 650, 666, 488 S.E.2d 215, 224 (1997). "'Discovery' is defined as actual discovery or the time when the fraud should have been discovered in the exercise of due diligence." Spears v. Moore, 145 N.C. App. 706, 708, 551 S.E.2d 483, 485 (2001).

Section 1-52(9) gives fraud claims a three-year limitations period that does not begin until the aggrieved party discovers the facts constituting the fraud or mistake.

Taylor v. Bank of Am. · filed 2022-12-29(9)

In North Carolina a cause of action for a fraud claim must be brought within three years and “shall not be deemed to have accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake.”

Subsection 1-52(4) provides a three-year limitations period for conversion claims, running from the date of the alleged wrongful conduct; collection will file it under existing headings where appropriate.

Lockerman v. S. River Electric Membership Corp. · filed 2016-12-06(4)

Conversion claims are subject to a three-year statute of limitations running from the date of the alleged wrongful conduct. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(4) (2015).

Section 1-52(9) gives fraud claims a three-year limitations period, running from when the plaintiff discovered the facts constituting fraud or should have discovered them with reasonable diligence.

Willis v. Tritle · filed 2019-07-12(9)

Under North Carolina law, there is a three-year statute of limitations for fraud claims. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(9). The limitations period begins to run when the plaintiff discovered the facts constituting the fraud or should have done so with reasonable diligence.

Claims for breach of fiduciary duty that do not amount to constructive fraud have a three-year statute of limitations under § 1-52(1).

Conleys Creek Ltd. P'ship v. Smoky Mountain Country Club Prop. Owners Ass'n · filed 2017-04-04(1)

“Allegations of breach of fiduciary duty that do not rise to the level of constructive fraud are governed by the three-year statute of limitations applicable to contract actions contained in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(1) (2003).”

Section 1-52(1) provides a three-year limitations period for breach-of-contract claims, running from the breach.

Crabtree v. Smith · filed 2017-04-04§ 1-52(1)

Plaintiffs' complaint was filed in November of 2015, more than three years after any alleged violation had occurred, and thus after the three year statute of limitations had expired.

Section 1-52 imposes a three-year statute of limitations on breach-of-contract claims and on claims for reasonable compensation for occupation of property under § 42-4.

Zagaroli v. Neill · filed 2018-03-28§ 1-52(1) and (2)

a claim for breach of contract is subject to a three-year statute of limitations. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(1). ... A claim for reasonable compensation for occupation of one’s property under section 42-4 is subject to a three-year statute of limitations. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(2)

The court held that § 1-52(3) gives trespass upon real property a three-year limitations period running from the original trespass even when the trespass is continuing, and that § 1-52(1) gives breach-of-contract claims a three-year period accruing when the breach is known or occurs.

Brown v. Lattimore Living Trust Dated Aug. 3, 2011, by & Through Its Trs. · filed 2019-04-02(3) and (1)

We also could not find any case providing for the tolling of the limitations period for trespass. Instead, we are guided by the plain language of the statute, which provides a three year statute of limitations for trespass upon real property and explicitly states, “[w]hen the trespass is a continuing one, the action shall be commenced within three years from the original trespass, not thereafter.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(3) (2017). ... This Court has made clear that, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(1), “[t]he statute of limitations for a breach of contract action is three years. The claim accrues at the time of notice of the breach.”

Section 1-52(1) gives breach-of-contract and related contractual claims a three-year limitations period, accruing when the breach occurs even if the injured party lacks knowledge.

Carlton v. First Tennessee Bank National Association · filed 2020-03-12(1)

A claim for breach of contract or any claim arising from a contractual breach is subject to a three year statute of limitations period. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(1). A breach of contract claim accrues upon the date of the breach, regardless of whether the injured party has knowledge that the breach occurred.

Section 1-52(1) gives breach-of-contract actions a three-year statute of limitations, and the court applied it to dismiss the claim as untimely.

RICHARDS v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION · filed 2020-03-13(1)

First, Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim is subject to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(1), which provides that actions concerning breach of contract have a three-year statute of limitations.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(1) generally gives breach-of-contract actions a three-year statute of limitations, subject to exceptions.

The Historic Preservation Foundation of North Carolina, Inc. v. Hardy · filed 2021-06-14(1)

The statute of limitations for a breach of contract action is generally three years, although there are some exceptions. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(1); Warrender v. Gull Harbor Yacht Club, 228 N.C. App. 520, 541 (2013).

Section 1-52(1) sets a three-year statute of limitations for breach-of-contract claims.

MedShift, LLC v. Pelle, LLC · filed 2022-02-08(1)

The statute of limitations for breach of contract in North Carolina is three years. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(1).

Section 1-52(5) supplies a three-year statute of limitations for a tortious-interference claim, barring a claim concerning the alleged 2004 incident.

Stevens v. Town of Snow Hill, NC · filed 2021-06-08(5)

Alternatively, and in any event, the three-year statute of limitations bars any such claim concerning the alleged 2004 incident.

Section 1-52(1) sets a three-year statute of limitations for breach-of-contract claims generally in North Carolina.

CAIN v. YADKINVILLE, TOWN OF · filed 2022-04-29(1)

North Carolina applies a three-year statute of limitations for breach of contract claims generally, see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(1)

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(2) provides the three-year statute of limitations applicable to NC RISA claims when NC RISA supplies no limitations period.

Bland v. Carolina Lease Management Group, LLC · filed 2022-10-28(2)

The NC RISA does not provide a statute of limitations, and the Court determines that the three-year statute of limitations provided in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(2) applies.

Section 1-52(1) generally gives breach-of-contract claims a three-year limitations period that runs from the date of the breach.

Manoula, LLC v. Ohio Security Insurance Company · filed 2022-12-15(1)

even though a breach-of-contract claim in North Carolina is ‘[g]enerally’ subject to the three-year statute of limitations set out in § 1-52(1) and running from the date of the breach.

Section 1-52(1) supplies a three-year statute of limitations for ERISA benefits and disclosure claims when North Carolina’s breach-of-contract period is the analogous state limitation.

Gasper v. EIDP, Inc. · filed 2024-08-28(1)

Here, the Court adopts North Carolina’s three-year statute of limitations for breach of contract claims pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(1) for Plaintiff’s § 502(a)(1)(B) claim. ... Likewise, the Court adopts N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(1) for Plaintiff’s ERISA § 502(c), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c) claim.

Section 1-52(1) provides a three-year limitations period for breach-of-contract actions, and that period applies to a declaratory-judgment claim seeking to vindicate contractual rights.

Chisum v. Campagna · filed 2018-07-27(1)

The Court concludes that the substantive rights Plaintiff seeks to vindicate through declaratory judgment arise from Operating Agreements, and the three-year statute of limitations for breach of contract actions provided in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(1) therefore applies.

Section 1-52(1) provides a three-year limitations period for breach-of-contract actions in North Carolina.

Samuels v. American Transit Corp. · filed 1984-07-23(1)

In North Carolina, that limitations period is three years. N.C.Gen.Stat. § 1-52(1).

Section 1-52(1) provides a three-year limitations period for breach-of-contract actions in North Carolina.

Woody v. Walters · filed 1999-03-30(1)

North Carolina, the forum state for this action, has a three-year statute of limitations for breach of contract actions. See N.C.Gen.Stat. § 1-52(1).

Section 1-52(9)'s three-year limitations period for fraud does not apply to a corporate-veil-piercing claim that is not a fraud claim.

Strawbridge v. Sugar Mountain Resort, Inc. · filed 2003-01-31(9)

Moving Defendants’ argument fails, however, because the undersigned has found that the fourth claim for relief is not a claim for the tort of fraud. Rather, this claim is an allegation that the Sugar Mountain Resort is the mere instrumentality of the moving Defendants. As discussed above, this is not a separate claim for fraud and, therefore, the three year statute of limitations for fraud does not apply.

Section 1-52 supplies a three-year limitations period for ordinary civil actions under North Carolina law.

Lippard v. Unumprovident Corp. · filed 2003-05-01

Accordingly, the Court will apply the three-year statute of limitations for ordinary civil actions under North Carolina law. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-52; Harrold v. Dowd, 149 N.C.App. 777, 781, 561 S.E.2d 914, 917 (N.C.App.2002).

Section 1-52(1) and (5) provide three-year limitation periods for breach-of-contract and negligent-misrepresentation claims.

Cincinnati Insurance v. Centech Building Corp. · filed 2003-10-02(1), (5)

Nevertheless, that date is still outside the three-year deadline to which Plaintiffs are strictly required to adhere. Therefore, Cincinnati’s professional malpractice claim against Little and Smith Helms is time barred by the three-year statute of limitations. Cincinnati’s third-party-beneficiary breach of contract claim and its negligent misrepresentation claim are likewise barred because they too are governed by three-year statute of limitations which, in this case, accrued on February 22, 1999 but were not tolled until February 28, 2002. See N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-52(1) (breach of contract); N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-52(5) (negligent misrepresentation). Accordingly, the Court will grant Little and Smith Helms’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Document # 143] with respect to all claims levied against them by Cincinnati because Little and Smith Helms are entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Plaintiffs’ claims against them are time-barred.

Section 1-52(5) imposes a three-year limitations period on common-law wrongful-discharge claims, while § 1-52(1) applies a three-year period to contract actions that begins when the contract is breached and the cause of action accrues.

Hall v. Tyco International Ltd. · filed 2004-07-27(5), (1)

However, a common-law wrongful-discharge claim must be brought within three years of the date of termination or it is time barred. ... As the North Carolina courts have held, “[i]n a contract action, the statute of limitations begins to run when the contract has been breached and the cause of action has accrued.”

Section 1-52(1) imposes a three-year statute of limitations on breach-of-contract actions.

Cleveland Construction, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance · filed 2011-04-29(1)

The general statute of limitations for breach of contract actions in North Carolina is three years. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-52(1). ... A three year statute of limitations applies to the claim. Plaintiff filed their Complaint on April 15, 2009; therefore, any claim that arose prior to April 15, 2006 is barred.

Section 1-52(1) provides a three-year statute of limitations for contract actions.

New Bern Riverfront Development, LLC v. Weaver Cooke Construction, LLC (In re New Bern Riverfront Development, LLC) · filed 2014-08-25(1)

North Carolina General Statute § 1-52 provides a three year statute of limitations for actions sounding in tort or contract. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-52(1), (5) (2010).

Section 1-52(1) provides a three-year limitations period for contract-based claims, and the court applied that period to hold the breach-of-warranty claim time-barred because the defects should have been discovered more than three years before suit.

New Bern Riverfront Development, LLC v. Weaver Cooke Construction, LLC (In re New Bern Riverfront Development, LLC) · filed 2014-09-26(1)

“North Carolina General Statute § 1-52 provides a three-year statute of limitations for actions sounding in tort or contract. ... The court finds that Weaver Cooke should have investigated the sufficiency of HHAC’s work at the time that HHAC asserted a claim of lien and a payment bond claim and initiated an action to enforce its claim, in February 2009. Certainly, Weaver Cooke should have investigated any defects by the time it entered into a settlement agreement with HHAC on May 27, 2009. ... Therefore, Weaver Cooke’s claims of negligence and breach of express warranty are time-barred and HHAC’s motion for summary judgment shall be allowed as to those claims.”

Section 1-52(1) provides the limitations period for breach-of-contract claims; the court held this claim timely because the alleged breach occurred in February 2014 and suit was filed on 12 March 2014.

Odom v. Kelly · filed 2015-08-04(1)

Here, the refusal of the written demand by Martin's estate which Odom alleges constituted a breach of the terms of the note occurred in February 2014, and the complaint was filed 12 March 2014, well within the time period permitted for a breach of contract under our General Statutes. SeeN.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-52(1) (2013). For this reason, Kelly's arguments that any breach of the note occurred either at the time of Martin's death or when Lee failed to repay upon being contacted by representatives of Martin's estate, thus barring Odom's breach of contract claim under the applicable statute of limitations or the doctrine of laches, must fail.

For actual-fraud claims, § 1-52(9) imposes a three-year limitations period that begins when the injured party discovers, or reasonably should discover through due diligence, the facts constituting fraud.

Wilson v. Pershing, LLC · filed 2017-05-16§ 1-52(9)

With respect to actual fraud claims, “the cause of action shall not be deemed to have accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(9) (2015). “ ‘[D]iscovery’ means either actual discovery or when the fraud should have been discovered in the exercise of reasonable diligence.”

A fraud claim must be filed within three years, and the limitations period does not begin until the injured party discovers the facts constituting the fraud or mistake.

Diop v. BMW of North America, LLC · filed 2021-01-06(9)

Claims for fraud in North Carolina must be brought within three years of their accrual. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(9). Fraud claims “shall not be deemed to have accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake.”

Section 1-52(9) provides that a fraud action, including one based on forgery, accrues when the fraud is discovered.

Ford Motor Credit Company v. Minges · filed 1973-02-07(9)

In contrast, a cause of action based on fraud, including forgery, does not accrue until discovery. N.C.Gen.Stat. § 1-52(9) (1969); Cooper v. Floyd, 9 N.C.App. 645, 177 S.E.2d 442 (1970).

Section 1-52(16) gives a three-year limitations period for personal-injury claims, running from when the claimant's harm becomes apparent or reasonably should have become apparent.

Manion v. North Carolina Medical Board · filed 2017-06-08(16)

North Carolina’s statute of limitations in personal injury cases runs three years after the claimant’s harm “becomes apparent or ought reasonably to have become apparent to the claimant.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(16) (2015).

North Carolina personal-injury claims have a three-year limitations period, beginning when the injury becomes apparent or reasonably should have become apparent, whichever occurs first.

McClean v. Duke Univ. · filed 2019-03-25(16)

In North Carolina, the statute of limitations for a personal injury claim is three years.

Section 1-52(16) gives personal-injury claims a three-year limitations period running from when the claimant's harm becomes apparent or reasonably should have become apparent.

GLENN v. METECH RECYCLING INC. · filed 2020-07-01(16)

North Carolina’s statute of limitations in personal injury cases runs three years after the claimant’s harm ‘becomes apparent or ought reasonably to have become apparent to the claimant.’

Section 1-52(1) requires actions based on an express or implied contract to be brought within three years after the cause of action accrues.

Tuttobene v. The Assurance Group, Inc. · filed 2018-05-23(1)

In North Carolina, actions based “[u]pon a contract, obligation or liability arising out of a contract, express or implied,” must be brought within three years of the time the cause of action accrued. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(1).

Section 1-52(9) provides a three-year limitations period for fraud-or-mistake relief, with accrual upon discovery, but the more specific ten-year period in § 1-47(2) controls when the claim concerns a sealed instrument conveying an interest in real property.

Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Dean · filed 2018-09-18(9)

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(9) specifies a three-year limitations period “[f]or relief on the ground of fraud or mistake; the cause of action shall not be deemed to have accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake.” ... As between N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1-47(2) and 1-52(9), the former is the more specific statute of limitations that applies to Nationstar’s reformation claim under the ten-year limitations period.

Section 1-52(5) provides the three-year limitations period for negligent misrepresentation claims, while § 1-52(9) governs intentional misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment claims.

Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Rsm US LLP · filed 2018-09-28(5), (9)

Our appellate courts have previously held that the three-year statute of limitations provided by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(5) applies to claims for negligent misrepresentation. ... Provectus’s claims for intentional misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment thus fall under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(9).

Subsection (16) provides a three-year limitations period for tort claims, while subsection (9) provides a three-year limitations period for fraud claims that begins when the aggrieved party discovers the facts constituting the fraud.

INDIANA PAIN AND SPINE CLINIC, LLC v. CAROLINA LIQUID CHEMISTRIES CORPORATION · filed 2022-03-25(16), (9)

Therefore, it is appropriate to apply North Carolina’s statute of limitations for torts which is three years, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(16). ... The statute of limitations in North Carolina for a claim of fraud is three years, but it does not accrue “until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud . . . .” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(9).

Section 1-52 requires a negligent-misrepresentation claim to be brought within three years of discovery of the facts constituting the negligence.

Rutledge v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re Rutledge) · filed 2014-05-16

A claim alleging negligent misrepresentation must be brought within three years of discovery of the facts constituting the negligence. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-52.

The three-year limitations period under § 1-52 does not bar a breach-of-contract claim when the alleged breach occurred after the employer failed to pay incentive compensation following its 2015 audit.

Raynor v. G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. · filed 2017-10-03§ 1-52

G4S's argument that the breach of the incentive contract is barred by the statute of limitations fails.

Section 1-52(9)'s three-year fraud-or-mistake limitations period does not apply to a claim to reform a deed of trust based on mistake.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Stocks · filed 2019-07-02(9)

Section 1-47(2) governs Wells Fargo’s reformation claim. Thus, although the trial court may very well have properly determined that Section 1-52(9) did not bar summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo, that determination is immaterial.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(1) imposes a three-year limitations period on actions arising from an express or implied contract, but it does not apply to a reimbursement claim arising in equity rather than contract.

Lawrence v. Lawrence · filed 2020-01-21(1)

This petition for partition and reimbursement is equitable in nature and does not arise from a contract, express or implied, between the parties to implicate the three-year statute of limitations under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(1).

For the three-year limitations period under § 1-52(16), the relevant bodily harm is the injury that led to corrective surgery, while financial hardship and the surgery itself do not qualify as the bodily harm.

Wilson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. · filed 2020-05-21(16)

Two of these asserted injuries are not properly construed as “bodily harm[s]” within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(16) as alleged. First, “financial hardship” plainly does not qualify. Second, where a plaintiff brings an action against a manufacturer alleging personal injuries caused by its product, surgery to address such harms does not constitute the relevant “bodily harm” within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(16); instead, the “bodily harm” is the harm that led to the corrective surgery.

Section 1-52(16)'s ten-year statute of repose does not apply to actions caused or contributed to by exposure to groundwater contaminated by a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant; the groundwater-contamination clarification applies retroactively.

Bunting v. Department of the Navy · filed 2020-11-10(16)

Based on these facts, the Court finds that this amendment clarified the scope of the statute of repose, rather than altered it. Because this amendment clarified the scope of the statute of repose, it applies retroactively.

Section 1-52(16) imposes a ten-year statute of repose that applies to latent-disease claims and cuts off liability after ten years.

Douse v. USA · filed 2019-05-22(16)

As we held five years ago, Plaintiffs’ claims are subject to the ten-year statute of repose under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(16). The wells at issue in this case were taken out of use in 1987, and the earliest claim by a Plaintiff was made in 1999—two years after the statute of repose had cut off Defendants’ liability.

Section 1-52 sets a three-year limitations period for actions seeking recovery of goods or chattels.

Howard University v. Borders · filed 2022-03-01§ 1-52

It has a three-year statute of limitations for recovery of a chattel. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52 (“Within three years an action - . . . [f]or taking, detaining, converting or injuring any goods or chattels, including action for their specific recovery.”).

Section 1-52 provides a three-year limitations period for battery, false imprisonment, and IIED claims, while the SAFE Child Act temporarily revived otherwise time-barred civil actions for child sexual abuse under that section.

Howald v. Ben Lippen School · filed 2022-10-31

The North Carolina statute of limitations for battery, false imprisonment, and IIED is three years. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52. However, the North Carolina SAFE Child Act, ch. 245, 2019 N.C. Sess. Laws 1231, included a provision effective from January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2021, that “revive[d] any civil action for child sexual abuse otherwise time-barred under G.S. 1-52 as it existed immediately before the enactment of this act.”

Section 1-52(1) imposes a three-year limitations period on actions arising from express or implied contracts.

CAROLINA QUARRIES, INC. v. MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC. · filed 2023-05-10(1)

Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(1), an action brought “[u]pon a contract, obligation or liability arising out of a contract, express or implied” must be brought “[w]ithin three years.”

Section 1-52(1) gives breach-of-contract actions a three-year limitations period, while Section 1-52(2) limits recovery of child-support expenditures to those incurred within three years before filing.

Clute v. Gosney · filed 2023-09-12(1) (2)

“Generally, “[t]he statute of limitations for a breach of contract action is three years[,]” pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(1). ... “[T]he three-year statute of limitations under Section 1-52(2) bars the recovery of child support expenditures incurred more than three years before the date the action for child support is filed.”

The breach-of-contract claim based on the 2019 Storm was barred by § 1-52(1)’s three-year limitations period, while recovery for the 2023 Storm remained available.

TRIAD PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, LLC v. OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 2025-07-30(1)

Therefore, to the extent the breach of contract claim contained in Count II is premised on and seeks recovery for the conduct of Ohio Security relative to the 2019 Storm, it is time barred by the three year contract dispute statute of limitations. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(1); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-44-16(18). Thus, the breach of contract claim contained in Count II is limited to recovery for damages that emanate from the 2023 Storm.

Section 1-52(16) prescribes a three-year limitation for personal-injury claims, and negligence limitations do not toll until the defendant’s last act or omission giving rise to the claim.

Horton · filed 2025-11-21§ 1-52(16)

With respect to the negligence claims, Defendant points to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52, which prescribes a three-year limitation on certain lawsuits, including those for “personal injury.” N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 1-52(16). However, as that statute indicates, claims for negligence do not toll the statute of limitations until “the last act or omission of the defendant giving rise to the cause of action” has occurred. Jd. Defendant has not explained when this limiting period should be tolled and instead seems to believe that his conduct prior to November 2019 is automatically protected under the statute of limitations. That is not so.

A contract claim accrues when the defendant refuses to reimburse the plaintiff, rather than when the underlying expenses were incurred.

Levinsky v. Levinsky · filed 2026-01-07(1)

That the expenses were incurred earlier does not trigger the statute of limitations; the claim accrued upon Defendant’s refusal to reimburse Plaintiff under the contract.

Under § 1-52(1), the limitations period for a personal-injury claim does not begin against an infant merely because someone files a next-friend complaint; it runs when a properly authorized guardian has a duty to bring the claim.

Genesco, Inc. v. Cone Mills Corporation · filed 1979-07-27(1)

From these considerations, we conclude that the courts of North Carolina would not regard Emma's filing of a complaint as Susan's next friend in the Northern District of West Virginia as sufficient to start the North Carolina statute of limitations running against Susan in the present action. First, the filing of a next friend complaint did not invest Emma with any authority as Susan's guardian under North Carolina procedure. The Rowland doctrine applies only when a guardian is authorized to bring suit for the infant on the claim in question. Any authority to prosecute Susan's suit in West Virginia was obtained by Emma solely by her self-designation as Susan's next friend. The filing of the same complaint in a North Carolina state court, where a guardian Ad litem is required to be judicially appointed, would not vest Emma with any authority and would not start the statute of limitations running under Rowland. We do not think that a different result obtains because Emma filed her suit in federal court in West Virginia rather than in state court in North Carolina.

Section 1-52(2) provides a three-year limitations period for liabilities created by statute, and a continuing wrong postpones accrual until the wrongful conduct stops.

Almond v. Boyles · filed 1985-06-25(2)

North Carolina’s three-year statute of limitations for liabilities created by a statute applies to this action. See N.C.Gen. Stat. § 1-52(2). Therefore, the claims of vendors who withdrew from the Retirement System more than three years before this action was commenced are time-barred. In addition, the defendants argue that the statute of limitations limits plaintiffs’ recovery to those contributions paid in within three years of the date this action was filed. This court disagrees. The defendants’ deduction of “employer” contributions was a continuing wrong for which the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the defendants stopped making the deductions in 1983.

Section 1-52 provides a three-year limitations period for contract actions, but the nullum tempus doctrine lets a municipality’s claim arising from a governmental function proceed beyond that period.

MCI CONSTRUCTORS, INC. v. Hazen and Sawyer, PC · filed 2004-03-10

In North Carolina the statute of limitations for actions upon contract is three years. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-52 (2002). The statute of limitations for a breach of contract claim begins to run on the date the promise is broken. ... North Carolina courts recognize the doctrine of “nullum tempus occurrit regi,” or “time does not run against the king.” ... This doctrine has the practical effect of permitting causes of action accrued by a municipality or the state to endure beyond the time period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations. Although the rule is simple in its operation, determining when it applies is a much more difficult matter. Not every governmental activity is protected by the rule. Following the distinctions laid out in governmental immunity cases, those functions which are “governmental” benefit from the rule, while “proprietary” functions do not. ... Therefore, because health and safety concerns are implicated by the enlargement of a wastewater treatment plant, and such functions are at least as necessary as the construction of a public art museum, this court finds that the City was performing a government function. As such, National Union’s motion for summary judgment on this basis will be denied.

Section 1-52's three-year limitations period does not bar the United States' trespass action because the federal six-year limitations period in 28 U.S.C. § 2415(b) preempts it.

United States v. Kubalak · filed 2005-04-15

Likewise, the Defendants’ claim that Plaintiffs right to bring a trespass action is barred by the three year statute of limitations under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-52 is without merit. See, 28 U.S.C. § 2415(b). The United States may bring an action in trespass within a six year period. Such a provision, of course, preempts the North Carolina statute of limitations. “[I]n pursuing a viable claim, a federal agency is bound by the terms of the federal statute of limitations, which may not be lengthened or shortened by a state enactment.” F.D.I.C. v. Hinkson, 848 F.2d 432 (3d Cir.1988).

Section 1-52 provides a three-year limitations period for fraud and general personal-injury claims.

Bardes v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance · filed 2013-03-21

The statute of limitations in North Carolina for fraud and general injury to a person, such as prima facie tort if it exists in North Carolina, is three years. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-52. The majority of the allegedly false representations made by MassMutual occurred more than three years before filing, and action on them is time-barred. This lawsuit was filed on May 3, 2011. Therefore, the motion to dismiss should be granted for all claims arising out of W2s issued before May 3, 2008.

For negligent misrepresentation, § 1-52(5) provides a three-year limitations period that accrues only when the claimant has suffered harm and discovered the misrepresentation.

Pike v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2022-04-21(5)

Both parties agree that a three-year statute of limitations applies under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52 ... a claim for negligent misrepresentation ‘does not accrue until two events occur: first, the claimant suffers harm because of the misrepresentation, and second, the claimant discovers the misrepresentation.’

A conversion claim cannot be dismissed under § 1-52(4) at the pleading stage when deciding whether the continuing-wrong doctrine applies requires factfinding.

SPECTRUM SOUTHEAST, LLC v. FOOTHILLS CABLE CONNECTIONS, INC. · filed 2025-08-05(4)

At this stage, the court cannot conclude that Spectrum’s conversion claim is barred by the statute of limitations.

Before S.B. 199, § 1-52(16) imposed a ten-year statute of repose on child-sexual-abuse personal-injury claims, and S.B. 199 amended § 1-52 to exempt those claims.

Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte · filed 2022-05-03(16)

Before the passage of S.B.199, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(16) recognized a ten-year statute of repose on child-sexual-abuse claims, providing that “no cause of action [for personal injury] shall accrue more than 10 years from the last act or omission of the defendant giving rise to the cause of action.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(16) (2018). Section 4.2(a) amends this statute of repose by expressly exempting claims related to child sexual abuse from its scope.

Section 1-52(1) generally gives breach-of-contract claims three years, while § 1-52(12) gives certain insurance-loss claims three years running from the loss when the policy is subject to § 58-44-16’s limitation.

Ireifej v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America · filed 2022-12-14(1), (12)

“[g]enerally, in North Carolina, a breach of contract claim is subject to a three-year statute of limitations” pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(1) and that “[g]enerally, under the applicable case law, a breach of contract claim accrues on the date of breach.” ... “[A] separate three-year statute of limitations applies to certain insurance policies. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(12). Specifically, § 1-52(12) applies a three-year limitations period to an action “[u]pon a claim for loss covered by an insurance policy that is subject to the three-year limitation contained in [North Carolina General Statute §] 58-44-16.” Under § 58-44-16, such a claim must be brought within three years of the loss.”

Section 1-52(16) establishes a ten-year statute of repose that applies only to latent-injury claims.

McKinney v. Goins · filed 2023-09-12(16)

“[N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(16)] added a ten-year statute of repose . . . which applies only to latent injury claims.”

The ten-year statute of repose in § 1-52(16) applies only to latent injuries, so it did not apply to these non-latent sexual-abuse claims.

Doe v. Fulton · filed 2026-06-03(16)

In Wilder, our Supreme Court expressly said the “ten-year statute of repose which runs from ‘the last act of [the] defendant giving rise to the claim for relief’ . . . applies only to latent injury claims.”

Section 1-52(12) starts the three-year limitations period for a real-property insurance breach claim when the loss begins, meaning when hurricane-force winds damage the property.

Bear Investments, LLC v. Penn National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company · filed 2024-09-24(12)

North Carolina law provides that in an action for breach of a contract insuring real property, the three-year limitations period accrues on the date of “the inception of the loss . . . when hurricane-force winds damaged plaintiff’s real property.’”

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52 is a statute of limitations that lists causes of action a plaintiff must bring within three years, rather than providing a cause of action.

CORE · filed 2026-03-19

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52 lists causes ... within three years.

Section 1-52 can permit a claim based on a continuing insurance obligation to accrue from a later breach within the limitations period, while a fraud-or-mistake claim accrues when the facts are discovered or, subject to factual determination, should have been discovered with ordinary diligence.

Fli-Back Company, Inc. v. Philadelphia Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company and Affiliated Fm Insurance Company · filed 1974-08-01(1), (9)

The North Carolina cases, however, demonstrate that an agreement to provide insurance may create a continuing agency relationship. ... Since such a breach would fall within the limitations period, Fli-Back’s suit would not be barred. ... N.C.Gen.Stat. § 1-52(9) sets up a three-year bar for suits based on fraud or mistake but provides that the cause of action is not deemed to accrue until the aggrieved party discovers the facts that constitute the fraud or mistake. The North Carolina Supreme Court has qualified the proviso, holding that the cause of action may also accrue when the aggrieved party, in the exercise of ordinary diligence, should have discovered the fraud.

For an indemnity contract claim, the three-year limitations period under § 1-52 begins when the indemnitee suffers actual loss, not when the underlying conduct occurs.

Premier Corporation v. Economic Research Analysts, Inc. · filed 1978-07-10

North Carolina follows the general rule that a cause of action on an obligation to indemnify normally accrues when the indemnitee suffers actual loss. ... We therefore hold that Premier’s claim for indemnity under the contract was not barred by North Carolina’s statute of limitations.

Section 1-52(2)’s three-year limitations period begins when the cause of action accrues.

Epcon Homestead · filed 2024-07-16(2)

Therefore, if subsection 1-52(2) applies, the statute of limitations begins to run when the cause of action accrues.

Equitable estoppel can prevent the limitations period from running while the defendant's acts or representations induce the plaintiff to delay suit.

WALKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a Division of Tenneco, Inc., Appellant v. DICKERSON · filed 1977-09-01(1)

On remand, the district court must also correct its erroneous ruling with regard to the possible application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel, unless, of course, this issue is rendered moot by the finding that the action is founded upon a sealed instrument and thus not time-barred under the ten-year statute. ... If the doctrine of equitable estoppel is applicable, the statute of limitations would not begin to run until the acts or representations, causing plaintiff's delay, had ceased. ... In sum, reasonable men could have concluded that, until a date less than three years preceding the filing of suit, Dickerson induced Walker to forego litigation and to compromise their dispute.

Equitable estoppel can prevent the limitations period from beginning to run until the defendant's acts or representations inducing the plaintiff's delay have ceased.

Walker Manufacturing Co. v. Dickerson, Inc. · filed 1977-09-01(1)

On remand, the district court must also correct its erroneous ruling with regard to the possible application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel, unless, of course, this issue is rendered moot by the finding that the action is founded upon a sealed instrument and thus not time-barred under the ten-year statute. ... If the doctrine of equitable estoppel is applicable, the statute of limitations would not begin to run until the acts or representations, causing plaintiff’s delay, had ceased. ... We believe that sufficient facts existed so that reasonable men could differ on the issue of equitable estoppel; a directed verdict should therefore not have been granted.

For a minor’s § 1-52(1) claim, the limitations period begins when a legally authorized guardian has the duty to sue; a parent’s self-designated next-friend filing in another jurisdiction does not start it.

Genesco, Inc. v. Cone Mills Corp. · filed 1979-07-27(1)

We therefore conclude that the district court erred in holding that the North Carolina statute of limitations on Susan’s claim against Cone Mills began to run when Emma filed a complaint as Susan’s next friend against Murphy in the Northern District of West Virginia.

The three-year limitations period for contract and fraud claims begins when the right is invaded or the contract is breached, or when fraud is discovered or should have been discovered with reasonable diligence; uncertainty about damages does not postpone accrual.

Rothmans Tobacco Company, Ltd. And Rothmans (New Zealand) Ltd. v. Liggett Group, Inc. · filed 1985-08-22(1) and (9)

Under North Carolina law, an action accrues at the time of invasion of the plaintiff’s right. ... For contract actions, accrual occurs at the time of breach. ... Actions based on fraud accrue at the time that the fraud is discovered or should have been discovered with the exercise of reasonable diligence. ... On comparable reasoning, we hold that any claim for fraud or unfair trade practices also accrued no later than the date of the interim injunction. ... The limitations period on North Carolina contract and fraud actions is three years, see N.C. Gen.Stat. §§ 1-52(1) and (9), and on fair trade action is four years, see id. § 75-16.2.

Section 1-52(9) imposes a three-year limitations period on claims alleging actual fraud based on specific misrepresentations.

Dixon v. Gist · filed 2012-04-03(9)

As the fraud-induced conveyance claims only sufficiently allege actual fraud, the three-year statute of limitations of section 1-52(9) applies to those claims.

For conversion actions under § 1-52(4), the three-year limitations period runs from each conversion, and § 1-52(16)'s discovery rule does not apply.

First Investors Corp. v. Citizens Bank, Inc. · filed 1991-03-05(4), (16)

The statute of limitations for conversion is clearly one “otherwise provided by statute” thereby excluded from the purview of N.C.Gen.Stat. § 1-52(16) even if the Court accepted Plaintiffs’ argument that conversion of funds constitutes “physical damage to property.” In addition, as set forth above, the Court is of the opinion that “physical damage,” within the context of N.C.Gen.Stat. § 1-52(16), was meant to be literally interpreted. Having carefully reviewed all the materials before it and having read the cases cited by the parties, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs’ cause of action for each alleged conversion accrued at the time of that particular conversion. As the case at bar was filed more than three years after the last alleged act of conversion, the action is barred by the *692 statute of limitations.

For a fraud-based claim, the three-year limitations period begins when the fraud is discovered or reasonably could have been discovered.

Ferris v. Haymore · filed 1992-07-22(1)

Western concedes that the three-year period under N.C.Gen.Stat. § 1-52(1) applies to Ferris' claim under section 20-288(e). ... Therefore, the district court correctly concluded that the statute of limitations for Ferris' claim against Western began to run at the time of Ferris' discovery of the fraud or when he reasonably could have discovered the fraud.

For negligent damage to personal property, the three-year limitations period begins when the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered the injury, provided the defendant's negligence occurred within ten years.

In Re Brokers, Inc. · filed 2009-06-17(16)

A negligence action accrues at the time the plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the injury or damage, as long as it is within ten years of the defendant’s negligence. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-52(16). ... As a result, HB Auto is entitled to the protection of the discovery rule in N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-52(16). By filing the Complaint within three years of discovering the property damage, HB Auto is not barred by the statute of limitations from seeking damages for injuries sustained when Brokers moved the vehicles in March and April 2002.

Section 1-52(16) delays accrual of a criminal conversation claim until the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known of the affair.

Price v. Jones · filed 2014-09-16(16)

Therefore, if Plaintiff did not know or should not have known about the affair prior to 23 March 2009, the statute of limitations does not bar his claim.

Section 1-52 supplies a three-year limitation period for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Kestler v. North Carolina Local Governmental Employees' Retirement System · filed 1992-12-16

The three-year limitation period established by N.C.Gen.Stat. § 1-52 applies to this § 1983 claim.

Section 1-52 supplies a three-year limitations period in North Carolina for federal civil-rights claims subject to state statutes of limitation.

Whiting v. Weslowski · filed 1998-09-23

Federal civil rights claims brought under section 1981 are subject to state statutes of limitation. See id. at 462, 95 S.Ct. 1716. In North Carolina, the applicable limitation period is three years. See N.C.Gen.Stat. § 1-52; Theard v. Glaxo, Inc., 47 F.3d 676, 678 (4th Cir.1995).

Section 1-52(5) supplies a three-year limitations period for § 1983 claims in North Carolina, while federal law determines when the claim accrues.

Sheaffer v. County of Chatham · filed 2004-09-17(5)

Because § 1983 does not have its own statute of limitations, courts borrow the time limitation from the analogous state statute of limitations. ... The applicable statute in North Carolina is N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-52(5), which provides a three-year limitation on personal injury actions. ... Even though the limitations period is borrowed from state law, however, the calculation of when the cause of action accrued is a matter of federal law. ... Plaintiff commenced this action on April 16, 2003, and so any claim that accrued prior to April 16, 2000, is time barred. As such, any claims Plaintiff is attempting to raise that accrued before April 16, 2000, will be dismissed.

Section 1-52(5) provides the three-year limitations period applicable to § 1983 actions.

Hunt v. Locklear · filed 2000-08-04(5)

Although the district court addressed Hunt’s claims on the merits, we find that the action was barred by North Carolina’s three-year statute of limitations. See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276-80 (1985) (holding that in § 1983 actions, state statute of limitations for personal injury applies); Brooks v. City of Winston-Salem, 85 F.3d 178, 181 (4th Cir. 1996) (noting that three-year period for personal injury actions set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(5) (Supp. 1998), is limitations period applicable to § 1983 actions).

Section 1-52(1)’s three-year limitations period for breach of contract supplies the limitations period for an ERISA plan-benefits claim.

Singleton v. Temporary Disability Benefits Plan for Salaried Employees of Champion International Corp. 505 · filed 2006-05-19(1)

We hold that Singleton timely filed his claim for benefits in federal court. ... The parties agree that North Carolina’s three-year limitations period for breach of contract is the proper analogy here. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(1) (2005). ... Singleton filed suit in federal court on March 20, 2003, within the three-year statute of limitations.

Section 1-52(5)'s three-year limitations period governs § 1983 due process claims arising in North Carolina.

Tommy Davis Construction, Inc. v. Cape Fear Public Utility Authority · filed 2015-12-01(5)

To begin, we agree that Davis Construction’s federal due process claim is barred by the three-year statute of limitations provided by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(5).

Section 1-52(16) delays accrual of a personal-injury claim until bodily harm becomes apparent or reasonably should have become apparent, subject to a ten-year outer limit from the defendant’s last act or omission.

Bullard v. Dalkon Shield Trust · filed 1994-02-16(16)

Both statutes define accrual as the time of a claimant’s discovery of her injury. In the present case, Bullard claims she did not discover her cause of action until 1984 and makes no claim that her claim ought to have been discovered prior to October 1,1979. Thus, under the rule established by the Supreme Court of North Carolina in Bolick and Bemick, Bullard’s cause of action would not be deemed to have accrued as of October 1, 1979, for purposes of the applicability of N.C.G.S. § 1-50(6).

Later aggravation of an injury does not restart the limitations period once it has begun.

RATCLIFF v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. INC. · filed 2019-09-27(16)

Once the clock on the statute of limitations is triggered, subsequent aggravation of the plaintiffs condition will not alter the date of accrual.

Sections 1-52(1), (5), and (9) impose three-year limitations periods for contract, negligence and civil conspiracy, and fraud and fraudulent inducement claims, respectively; a contract claim accrues when the breach gives rise to the right of action.

Eagle Nation, Inc. v. Market Force, Inc. · filed 2001-05-02(1), (5), and (9)

Plaintiffs breach of contract claim is governed by North Carolina’s three-year statute of limitations. N.C.Gen.Stat. § 1-52(1). “A cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach which gives rise to the right of action.” ... As is the case with respect to plaintiffs contract claim, the applicable statutes of limitations under North Carolina law bar plaintiffs negligence, fraud, and civil conspiracy claims. See N.C.GemStat. § 1-52(5) (negligence and civil conspiracy have three-year statute of limitations); § 1-52(9) (fraud and fraudulent inducement claims have three-year statute of limitations).

Section 1-52 provides a three-year statute of limitations for negligence and fraud claims, barring negligence claims arising from events in 2016 when brought later.

Bradley v. Progress Residential Property Manager, LLC · filed 2021-06-25

“North Carolina imposes a three-year statute of limitations on negligence and fraud claims.” (Document No. 15, p. 7) (citing N.C.Gen.Stat. § 1-52). ... The undersigned finds Defendant’s arguments here to be compelling. The undersigned will, therefore, recommend that the motion to dismiss be granted as to Plaintiff’s claims under the FDCPA and/or negligence – stemming from allegations in 2016.

Section 1-52(5) provides the general three-year limitations period for emotional-distress claims, and it does not prohibit parties from contracting for a shorter period.

Badgett v. Federal Express Corp. · filed 2005-04-07(5)

Claims for emotional distress in North Carolina fall within the general three-year statute of limitations for injuries or rights not arising out of contract. ... That statute contains no language disavowing contractual limitations shorter than the statutory period. ... See N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-52(5).

Section 1-52(5) provides a three-year limitations period for a wrongful discharge claim based on violation of public policy.

Brackett v. SGL Carbon Corp. · filed 2003-06-03(5)

The statute of limitations for such a claim is three years. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(5) (2003).

Section 1-52(5) sets a three-year limitations period for wrongful discharge actions.

US ex rel. Wilson v. Graham County Soil · filed 2005-09-27(5)

In accordance with that decision, we in turn remand the case to the district court with directions to dismiss it as time-barred under North Carolina’s three-year statute of limitations for wrongful discharge.

Section 1-52 imposes three-year limitations periods for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and implied-warranty claims involving bodily injury, with accrual tied to discovery or when harm becomes apparent, as applicable.

Driggers v. Sofamor, S.N.C. · filed 1999-01-29(9), (5), (16), (1)

This cause of action for fraud is barred by the three-year statute of limitations set forth in N.C.Gen.Stat. § 1-52(9), which states that “the cause of action shall not be deemed to have accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake.” ... The limitations period begins to run when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered, in the exercise of reasonable care, the facts constituting the fraud. ... The statute of limitations for a negligent misrepresentation claim is also three years from the date of discovery. ... The statute of limitations for a personal injury claim sounding in negligence is three years under N.C.Gen.Stat. § 1-52(5). ... The cause of action accrues when “bodily harm to the claimant or physical damage to his property becomes apparent or ought reasonably to have become apparent to the claimant, whichever event first occurs.” N.C.Gen. Stat. § 1-52(16). ... The statute of limitations for breach of implied warranty claims where bodily injury to the plaintiff is an essential element of the claim is the three-year period contained in N.C.Gen.Stat. § 1-52(1).

Section 1-52(9) gives fraud claims three years from discovery of the fraud or mistake, while § 1-52(1) gives contract-breach claims three years from the breach regardless of the plaintiff’s knowledge.

Mountain Land Properties, Inc. v. Lovell · filed 2014-09-11(9), (1)

Plaintiff Diana D. has not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s analysis concerning the Court’s jurisdiction premised upon diversity, the Magistrate Judge’s discussion of the statutes of limitations applicable to Plaintiff Diana D.’s various claims, nor the majority of the Magistrate Judge’s meticulous factual and legal recommendations. The Court, therefore, adopts without further comment all of the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations not specifically identified by Plaintiff Diana D. as one of her seven “Specific Objections” to the M & R she has presented to this Court. ... Plaintiffs’ fraud claims are subject to a three year statute of limitations. N.C. GemStat. § 1-52(9); see also Carlisle v. Keith, 169 N.C.App. 674, 614 S.E.2d 542, 548 (2005). The three year limitations period accrues and beings to run from “the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake.” N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-52(9); see also Spears v. Moore, 145 N.C.App. 706, 551 S.E.2d 483, 485 (2001). ... A claim for breach of contract or any claim arising from a contractual breach is subject to a three year statute of limitations period. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-52(1). A breach of contract claim accrues upon the date of the breach, regardless of whether the injured party has knowledge that the breach has occurred. Housecalls Home Health Care, 682 S.E.2d at 744; Pharmaresearch Corp. v. Mash, 163 N.C.App. 419, 594 S.E.2d 148, 152 (2004); Miller, 478 S.E.2d at 670.

Section 1-52(16) bars a negligence claim when the continuing injury was apparent to the plaintiff for more than three years; later damage does not create a new cause of action unless the damage is separate and distinct.

Jones v. Town of Angier · filed 2007-01-02(16)

After reviewing the record and depositions, we determine the instant case to be like Robertson. Here, the injury was a continuing injury which was apparent to plaintiff for more than three years. ... Further, we do not think the injuries complained of by plaintiff had a "separate and distinct nature" like the injury complained of in Harrison. Accordingly, we disagree with plaintiff's contention.

Subsection (5) supplies a three-year limitations period for personal-injury actions, which applies to § 1983 claims in North Carolina.

Majeed v. North Carolina · filed 2007-10-04(5)

State statutes provide the relevant statute of limitations period for section 1983 claims. In North Carolina, the applicable statutory period is three years. See, e.g., Nati Adver. Co. v. City of Raleigh, 947 F.2d 1158, 1161-62 (4th Cir.1991) (applying statute of limitations period from personal injury actions under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-52(5)).