Hollmann v. Corcoran

James Hollmann contends in dismissing his case against James Corcoran as a matter of law, the court erred in (1) interpreting RCW 4.16.340(l)(c) to contain a constructive discovery/due diligence requirement; (2) applying this constructive discovery standard without regard to the particular circumstances of Mr. Hollmann relating to his emotional and psychological injuries that impeded his discovery; and (3) concluding Mr. Hollmann should have discovered his claim against Mr. Corcoran more than three years prior to the date he commenced his suit. We decide RCW 4.16.340(l)(c) refers to the…