Berenda v. Langford

In Berenda v. Langford, 914 P.2d 45, 51 (Utah 1996), the Court reasoned that "questions of when a plaintiff should reasonably begin inquiring about the defendant's wrongdoing and whether, once on notice, the plaintiff has acted with reasonable diligence to discover the facts forming the basis of the cause of action are all highly fact-dependent legal questions." Even though such issues are "highly fact-dependent legal questions," this does not mean that plaintiffs can avoid summary judgment simply by asserting that it would have been futile for them to inquire about potential claims. Indeed, if a plaintiff has made no inquiry, there can generally be no factual basis on which to conclude that an inquiry would have been futile. Because it would be pure speculation to conclude that the plaintiff's inquiries would have been futile, "'the facts underlying the allegation of fraudulent concealment'" could not survive summary judgment.