Thе question is whether this property damage suit was barred by a statute of limitations. On finding it was barred, the trial *559 court entered summary judgment for defendant. We reverse and remand.
Plaintiffs, David and Elaine Hegg, operate a dairy farm and are electricity customers of defendant Hawkeye Tri-County REC (Hawkeye). In the latter part of 1981 the Heggs began noticing signs of restlessness in their dairy herd and a reduction in milk production. In May of 1982 they conducted a reading of stray voltage by a hand-held meter and discovered the voltage readings were considerably higher than normal. After further testing the Heggs filed suit against Hawkeye, claiming Hawkeye had nеgligently delivered electricity to their farm in a manner that caused stray voltage and damaged their dairy herd. The suit was filed July 17, 1985, аnd was dismissed January 5, 1988, pursuant to Iowa rule of civil procedure 215.1 for lack of prosecution. The Heggs’ motion for reinstatement was denied and we affirmed the denial.
The Heggs filed this suit on January 2, 1991, this time claiming Hawkeye failed to correct the рroblem and therefore, in 1988, they were forced to buy an electronic grounding system (EGS). They sought damages for their econоmic loss. 1
Hawkeye moved for summary judgment, contending that the five-year statute of limitations contained in Iowa Code seсtion 614.1 (1991) for bringing actions based on injury to property had run. The district court agreed, holding that the Heggs’ claim was untimely. It granted the mоtion for summary judgment and the Heggs have appealed.
I. Under Iowa rule of civil procedure 287, summary judgment is approрriate only when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, and affidavits show that there is no gеnuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
Ottumwa Hous. Auth. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.,
II. The case turns on whether the five-year statute of limitations contained in section 614.1 began to run on or before January 2,1986. Iowa Code section 614.1(4) provides that actions brought for injuries to property shall be brought within five years after their causes accrue. Iowa courts have long followed the principle that a cause of action based on negligencе does not accrue until the plaintiff has in fact discovered that he or she has suffered injury or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered it.
Lebeau v. Dimig,
In contending their cause of action accrued in 1988 when they installed the EGS, the Heggs claim that the negligent acts of Hawkeye are ongoing and continuous. They argue their action did not accrue until the last date on which the negligence occurred. We agree that where the wrongful act is continuous or repeated, so that separate and successive actions for damages arise, the statute of limitations runs as to these latter actions at the date of their accrual, not from the date of the first wrong in the series.
Anderson v. Yearous,
So the case comes down to whether the Heggs complained of a continuing wrong. We have considered the nature of a continuing wrong in prior cases. In
Anderson,
We believe the present case is similar to our own past cases. The injuries resulting from the stray voltage are recurring. Consequently, the Heggs may recover for damages occurring within the five-year period preceding the filing of this lawsuit. For this reason, the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Hawkeye. Thus we reverse the district court’s summary judgment for Hawkeye and remand this case for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Notes
. They also sought damages for emotional distress and resulting punitive damages. These matters, subject to the two-year statute of limitations in Iowa Code § 614.1, were properly dismissed as untimely. The matters giving rise to the emotional distress claim were shown to have been remedied more than two years prior to suit.