Alisa Leigh Eldridge v.Lee Savage, M2016-01373-COA-R3-CV

Background

In 1994 Eldridge purchased a house from Savage after Savage disclosed prior fire damage; Eldridge and her then-fiancé observed visible fire-related defects and obtained an FHA-required professional inspection that reported no environmental hazards.
Eldridge lived in the house ~16 years; in 2010 while cleaning she found extensive soot and hidden fire damage (behind cabinets, in walls, under linoleum, and in the HVAC return) and then sued Savage for intentional and negligent misrepresentation, TCPA violation, and rescission/mistake.
Savage moved to dismiss/for summary judgment arguing all claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations because accrual occurred at the 1994 purchase date.
On initial appeal (2012) this Court reversed and remanded, finding it premature to dismiss because concealed damage might not have been discoverable earlier; the case proceeded with little/no discovery.
On remand Savage renewed summary judgment (2015). The trial court granted it, finding Eldridge had inquiry notice in 1994 (actual knowledge of fire and visible damage), could have discovered more by reasonable investigation, and thus the discovery rule/fraudulent concealment did not toll limitations to save her claims.
The Court of Appeals affirmed: even assuming misrepresentation/concealment, undisputed facts showed Eldridge could have discovered the injuries with reasonable diligence shortly after purchase, so the claims accrued in 1994 and were time-barred.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When did claims accrue / did limitations run from 1994 purchase?	Eldridge: claims did not accrue until 2010 when she discovered extent of concealed damage.	Savage: accrual at 1994 purchase because Eldridge had actual knowledge of fire damage then.	Held: Accrual in 1994; limitations ran from purchase date absent tolling.
Does the discovery rule toll limitations until 2010?	Eldridge: discovery rule applies because concealed damage was not discoverable earlier despite reasonable diligence.	Savage: discovery rule does not apply; Eldridge had facts in 1994 that put a reasonable person on inquiry notice.	Held: Discovery rule does not toll; undisputed facts show a reasonable person could have discovered the injury earlier.
Does fraudulent concealment toll limitations?	Eldridge: Savage fraudulently concealed extent of damage and misled her, excusing further inquiry.	Savage: Even assuming concealment, Eldridge could have discovered the concealment with reasonable diligence shortly after purchase.	Held: Fraudulent concealment fails because Eldridge cannot show she could not have discovered the injury despite reasonable diligence; tolling insufficient to save claims.
Was summary judgment appropriate?	Eldridge: genuine factual disputes exist that should go to a jury (reasonable diligence, concealment).	Savage: undisputed admissions and facts negate tolling; entitled to judgment as matter of law.	Held: Summary judgment affirmed—no material factual dispute a reasonable jury could decide for Eldridge.

Key Cases Cited

Redwing v. Catholic Bishop for Diocese of Memphis, 363 S.W.3d 436 (Tenn. 2012) (defines discovery rule, fraudulent concealment tolling, and inquiry notice standards)
Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 2015) (standard for appellate review of summary judgment)
Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208 (Tenn. 1993) (definition of ‘‘genuine issue’’ for summary judgment: reasonable jury could legitimately resolve fact)
Shadrick v. Coker, 963 S.W.2d 726 (Tenn. 1998) (plaintiff deemed to have discovered a claim when facts put a reasonable person on notice)
Vance v. Schulder, 547 S.W.2d 927 (Tenn. 1977) (elements and burden for proving fraudulent concealment)