## Facts

- Kristi Norgart McBride, an adult, suffered from insomnia and depression and was prescribed Halcion (triazolam), a prescription hypnotic manufactured by The Upjohn Company.
- While taking Halcion, Kristi experienced significant psychological problems and died by suicide.
- Kristi’s parents and her estate representatives filed a wrongful-death/products-liability action against Upjohn on October 16, 1991.
- The parents’ testimony and conduct showed that more than one year before filing suit they suspected, or had reason to suspect, that Halcion contributed to Kristi’s death and that wrongdoing by the manufacturer was involved.
- The parents consulted attorneys and investigated the possible connection between Halcion, Kristi’s death, and Upjohn’s responsibility before the limitations period expired.

## Issues

1. Under California’s discovery rule, when did the wrongful-death/products-liability causes of action accrue?
2. Did California’s then-applicable one-year limitations period for wrongful death/personal injury bar the action?
3. Did alleged concealment by the manufacturer, or plaintiffs’ lack of complete information, delay accrual or toll the statute?

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Upjohn on statute-of-limitations grounds.
- The court held the causes of action accrued when plaintiffs suspected, or had reason to suspect, a factual basis for the claim’s elements, including a causal link between Halcion and the death and some wrongful cause.
- Because plaintiffs had that suspicion more than one year before filing, the action was time-barred as a matter of law.
- Alleged concealment and later-acquired information did not postpone accrual where plaintiffs already had sufficient suspicion to trigger a duty to investigate and decide whether to sue.
- A concurrence/dissent agreed with the general discovery-rule standard but would have found triable issues on whether plaintiffs’ suspicion arose within the limitations period.

## Legal Principles

- A cause of action generally accrues when it is complete with all elements; the limitations period runs from accrual.
- Under the discovery rule, accrual is postponed until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the cause of action—i.e., when the plaintiff at least suspects, or has reason to suspect, a factual basis for its elements.
- Suspicion, not certainty or conclusive proof, triggers accrual; the limitations period does not wait for full scientific explanation, complete evidentiary support, or refined legal theories.
- Once a plaintiff suspects injury was caused by wrongdoing, the plaintiff has a duty to investigate and must file suit within the limitations period; the plaintiff cannot delay while seeking additional confirming facts.
- Accrual is not postponed merely because the plaintiff lacks full knowledge of the manufacturer’s specific misconduct or does not yet know every potential defendant’s role, so long as suspicion of wrongful causation exists.

## Conclusion

The court held that the parents’ and estate’s claims accrued when they suspected, or had reason to suspect, that Halcion and manufacturer wrongdoing contributed to Kristi Norgart McBride’s suicide; because they filed more than one year after that point, the wrongful-death/products-liability action was barred and summary judgment for the manufacturer was proper.


Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 981 P.2d 79 (Cal. 1999)