In McGee v. Weinberg (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 798, Mrs. McGee in 1976 sued the attorney who represented her in a 1963 divorce action. The claimed malpractice was a failure on the attorney's part to require the husband to maintain Mrs. McGee as irrevocable beneficiary on his life insurance policy. The husband died in 1973 and Mrs. McGee received no insurance proceeds. She did not bring suit until three years later (the two-year statute of limitations was then in effect). The Court of Appeal pointed to this fact. Mrs. McGee "knew that she had been damaged. She received no money from any insurance proceeds on her husband's death in 1973." (P. 802.) In McGee v. Weinberg, the trial court sustained the defendant's demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint for legal malpractice on the ground the statute of limitations had run. The plaintiff contended on appeal the statute of limitations had not begun to run until she spoke to a lawyer and learned she had a right to sue for legal malpractice based on her failure to recover life insurance benefits upon her husband's death. The court rejected that argument, explaining: "If the contentions advanced by appellant were accepted, the practical effect would be to nullify the statutes of limitations. Any plaintiff could allege ignorance of his or her legal rights against a particular defendant. . . . However, facts and events which inform a person that something is wrong, or should be looked into, are usually recognized by the ordinary person. . . . It is the occurrence of some cognizable event rather than knowledge of its legal significance that starts the running of the statute of limitations." (Id. at pp. 803-804.)