Case Caption: Burt v. Lockheed Martin Corp., et al.Case Number: SCT-CIV-2022-0118Date: 11/19/2024Author: Hodge, Rhys S. Citation: 2024 VI 33Summary: In an appeal from an order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant in a products liability action because the personal injury claims were barred by the Virgin Islands two-year statute of limitations, the granting of summary judgment as to the asbestos exposure claims is affirmed, and the dismissal of the bauxite and alumina dust-related claims is reversed. Case law has concluded that “[t]he discovery rule tolls the statute of limitations when, despite the exercise of due diligence, the injury or its cause is not immediately evident to the victim,” and has outlined a two-prong tolling the commencement of the running of the statutory period until the plaintiff knows, or reasonably should know both that he or she has been injured and the cause of the injury. Since the Superior Court appropriately applied the conjunctive interpretation of the rule in this case, it committed no error. Information an attorney receives during the scope of his representation of a client will be imputed onto that client even if the client does not have actual knowledge of that information. Thus the Superior Court committed no error in finding that an attorney-client relationship existed in February 2019 and that the attorney’s knowledge of a March 18, 2019 report was imputed to the plaintiff. The Superior Court also correctly determined that plaintiff knew of his injury (asbestosis) and knew or reasonably should have known of the cause of the injury (exposure to asbestos) by no later than March 18, 2019. Thus, based on the undisputed evidence in the record, the Superior Court’s holding that the plaintiff’s asbestos-related claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations is affirmed, as is its order granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the asbestos claims. However, plaintiff also set forth in his complaint several claims for injuries caused by exposure to bauxite and alumina dusts. As the Superior Court failed to make any findings as to the applicability of the tolling provisions of the discovery rule to those claims in its December 6, 2022 opinion and order, the judgment is reversed as to the dismissal of the bauxite and alumina dust injury claims, and the case is remanded to the Superior Court for reinstatement of the complaint as to those claims.Attachment: Open Document or Opinion