In Foxborough v. Van Atta (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 217, the court held that the statute of limitations began to run when the plaintiff suffered a loss of a right, remedy, or interest, "regardless of whether future events may affect the permanency of the injury or the amount of monetary damages eventually incurred." (Foxborough, supra, at p. 227.) The court concluded that any alleged injury to the plaintiff had occurred outside the statute of limitations period. (Ibid.) Similarly, the court in Van Dyke v. Dunker & Aced (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 446, was concerned with the running of the statute of limitations for negligent tax advice and concluded that the claim accrued when the client first learned that the advice was erroneous and suffered a detriment that was not merely potential or tentative. (Van Dyke, supra, at pp. 453-455.) Neither of these cases on the statute of limitations is relevant, as both cases were concerned with when the plaintiff first learned of the loss of a right, remedy, or interest.