Norgart v. Upjohn Co

In Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal. 4th 383, the Supreme Court found as a matter of law that the wrongful death plaintiffs in that case knew, more than a year before their complaint was filed, about the potential connection between their daughter's death and her use of a prescription drug manufactured by the defendants. This conclusion stemmed in large part from the concession by plaintiffs that very shortly after their daughter's death, they suspected wrongdoing by someone, although they were not sure who, who was to blame for their daughter's death. They believed some wrongdoing had occurred by someone (either her husband or one of her doctors). Thus, the summary judgment in favor of the drug manufacturer was upheld, and the Supreme Court reiterated that a statute of limitations commences when a plaintiff has reason to suspect a factual basis for a cause of action, and that a plaintiff "has reason to suspect when he has '"notice or information of circumstances to put a reasonable person on inquiry" '." (Norgart, supra, 21 Cal. 4th at p. 398.) In Norgart, supra, 21 Cal. 4th 383, the plaintiffs were the parents of a married woman who had committed suicide while being treated by a psychiatrist and while taking the prescription hypnotic Halcion. Shortly after their daughter's death the parents discovered that she had received psychiatric treatment and was taking this medication at the time of her death. Over six years after their daughter's death, the parents sued Upjohn, the manufacturers of Halcion, alleging that it had not provided adequate warnings and that regardless of any warnings that could be provided, the drug was unreasonably dangerous at higher dosage levels. This complaint was held untimely due to the plaintiffs' earlier suspicions of wrongdoing by someone, putting them on notice of a potential claim. In Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) the court confirmed that under the discovery rule the limitations period begins to run when the plaintiff "suspects a factual basis . . . for its elements," i.e., when the plaintiff suspects " 'that someone has done something wrong' to him or her." In Norgart, the court explained: " 'Statute of limitations' is the 'collective term . . . commonly applied to a great number of acts,' or parts of acts, that 'prescribe the periods beyond which' a plaintiff may not bring a cause of action. It has as a purpose to protect defendants from the stale claims of dilatory plaintiffs. It has as a related purpose to stimulate plaintiffs to assert fresh claims against defendants in a diligent fashion. Inasmuch as it 'necessarily fixes' a 'definite period of time', it operates conclusively across the board, and not flexibly on a case-by-case basis." (21 Cal. 4th at p. 395.) Recognizing that courts have described the affirmative defense based upon the statute of limitations as both "favored" for providing repose and "disfavored" for promoting disposition on the merits, the court in Norgart clarified that the affirmative defense should not be characterized as favored or disfavored because both stated public policies are "equally strong, the one being no less important or substantial than the other." (Norgart, supra, 21 Cal. 4th. at p. 396.) Regardless of the policies, Norgart makes it clear it is for the Legislature alone to establish the period under any statute of limitations. (Ibid.) A plaintiff, of course, must file suit within the limitations period after accrual of the cause of action. (Norgart, supra, 21 Cal. 4th at p. 397.) Norgart summarized the accrual rules as follows: "The general rule for defining the accrual of a cause of action sets the date as the time 'when, under the substantive law, the wrongful act is done,' or the wrongful result occurs, and the consequent 'liability arises . . . .' In other words, it sets the date as the time when the cause of action is complete with all of its elements citations--the elements being generically referred to by sets of terms such as 'wrongdoing' or 'wrongful conduct,' 'cause' or 'causation,' and 'harm' or 'injury'." (Norgart, supra, 21 Cal. 4th at p. 397.)