In Taffe v. First National Bank of Alaska,[1] the supreme court held the statute of limitations for a misrepresentation begins to run when the plaintiffs should reasonably have discovered an appreciable injury from the misrepresentation. Taffe and Lehner borrowed money in the form of two loans from First National Bank of Alaska in 2006 to develop a community subdivision. Taffe and Lehner executed a change in terms agreement in 2010, and collateral remained the same. When they were unable to pay the loan, First National foreclosed and acquired the unsold land. In 2013, Taffee and Lehner filed a complaint, later amending it to state a variety of fraud claims. In 2016, the bank sought to extinguish remaining claims, including a fraud claim of misrepresentation, as barred by statutes of limitations. The superior court ruled in First National’s favor, finding that Taffe and Lehner knew enough to pursue a claim in 2009. Taffe and Lehner appealed. The supreme court affirmed, holding that the statute of limitations on the fraud claims began to run no later than the date when Taffe and Lehner executed a change in terms that did not alter the collateral. The court reasoned that the date of appreciable injury and the date they should have discovered the appreciable injury were the same. Taffe and Lehner were aware of and complaining to First National in early 2009, and their 2010 agreement constituted appreciable injury. Because their misrepresentation claim was complete by 2010, the statute of limitations had begun to run no later than February 2010. The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, holding that the court appropriately looked to the date of appreciable injury from the fraud and when the plaintiffs had inquiry notice.
[1] 450 P.3d 239 (Alaska 2019).
