Ann Marie Bergin v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18199

In Sept. 2005 Ann Bergin (Texas resident) received an ObTape transobturator mesh sling manufactured by Mentor Worldwide.
By March–Sept. 2006 Bergin experienced complications; surgeons removed exposed/infected mesh and told her the sling could be causing symptoms.
Bergin understood the procedures addressed the mesh exposure but was not told the product was defective or that Mentor was negligent.
Bergin filed suit in May 2013, alleging product liability against Mentor. Mentor moved for summary judgment as time-barred under Texas’s two‑year personal injury statute of limitations.
The district court held Bergin’s claims accrued in 2006 when she was put on notice of a causal connection between the mesh and her injuries, and granted summary judgment.
The Eleventh Circuit certified the controlling legal question to the Texas Supreme Court because Texas law is unsettled on whether accrual requires knowledge of alleged wrongful conduct by the manufacturer or merely notice of a causal link to the product.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Under Texas’ discovery rule in a product‑liability case, does accrual require the plaintiff to have knowledge (or reason to know) of possible wrongdoing by the manufacturer before the limitations period begins?	Bergin: Accrual requires discovery (or reasonable knowledge) of all elements of a cause of action — including the defendant’s wrongful or negligent conduct; limitations did not start until 2013.	Mentor: Accrual occurs when plaintiff knows or should know of a causal connection between injury and the product; knowledge of manufacturer’s wrongdoing is not required — accrual occurred in 2006.	Eleventh Circuit declined to decide and certified the question to the Texas Supreme Court as a controlling, unsettled issue of Texas law.

Childs v. Haussecker, 974 S.W.2d 31 (Tex. 1998) (explains Texas discovery rule and when accrual may be deferred for inherently undiscoverable injuries)
Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 918 S.W.2d 453 (Tex. 1996) (discusses discovery rule context and objectively unverifiable injuries)
KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison Cty. Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. 1999) (clarifies that accrual occurs when plaintiff knew or should have known of the wrongfully caused injury and limits overly broad formulations)
Timberlake v. A.H. Robins Co., 727 F.2d 1363 (5th Cir. 1984) (applied Texas law to hold accrual occurred when plaintiff knew of injury and its cause, rejecting tolling until knowledge of defendant’s wrongdoing)
Woodruff v. A.H. Robins Co., 742 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1984) (contrasting Fifth Circuit precedent holding accrual may be deferred until a plaintiff learns of a negligent cause)
Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2007) (federal de novo review principle for state law questions)