Duffy v. CBS Corp.

Greene, J. In this case we must decide whether the statute of repose, presently codified as Section 5-108 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Maryland Code (1973, 2013 Repl. Vol.) ("CJP § 5-108" or "statute of repose"), bars the causes of action brought by James F. Piper ("Mr. Piper"), now deceased. After Mr. Piper's death, and while the case was pending in the intermediate appellate court, the Register of Wills appointed Petitioner, June Diane Duffy ("Ms. Duffy" or "the Estate"), Personal Representative of Mr. Piper's Estate, 1 and she was substituted in place of the decedent as a party to the litigation. 2 Ms. Duffy pursues, on behalf of the Estate, Mr. Piper's causes of action for personal injury and wrongful death resulting from his undisputed and unknowing exposure to asbestos that last occurred days before the statute of repose was first enacted in 1970 as Article 57, § 20 in the Maryland Code (1957, 1968 Repl. Vol., 1970 Cum.

Supp.). The General Assembly enacted the statute of repose to provide a temporal limitation to the discovery rule's 3 applicability to causes of action for injuries "arising" from improvements to real property. Mr. Piper's causes of action stem from his exposure to asbestos, which led to the development of mesothelioma, a latent disease. 4 Due to the latent effects of asbestos exposure and, thus, the causes of action at issue, the penultimate question in the case before us is when do injuries from asbestos exposure "arise" for purposes of the statute of repose. The answer to that question resolves whether the statute of repose when it was first enacted, as 1970 Maryland Laws, Chapter 666 ("Ch. 666"), and originally codified as Art. 57, § 20, bars Petitioner's claim for injuries that arose prior to the enactment of the statute.

To guide us, we rely on the tenets of statutory construction to determine what the drafters meant by the term "arise" within the meaning of the statute of repose. Factual and Procedural Background The undisputed facts are as follows. Respondent, CBS Corporation, is a Delaware corporation. It was formerly known as Viacom, Inc., a successor by merger to the CBS Corp. and also formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corporation ("Westinghouse").

At the time of Mr. Piper's injuries, CBS Corp. was known as Westinghouse. In March 1970, Westinghouse contracted with Potomac Electric Power Company ("Pepco") to manufacture, supply, and deliver the components needed to build a Steam Turbine Generator ("Unit 1") at Pepco's Morgantown Generating Station ("Morgantown"). Westinghouse built the major components of the turbine offsite and constructed the turbine onsite at Morgantown. Included in the turbine specifications were insulating materials that contained asbestos.

Walter E. Campbell Company ("WECCO") entered into a subcontract with Westinghouse to supply and install the insulating materials that Westinghouse specified for construction of the turbine generator. Westinghouse provided WECCO with the "Process Specification" for the "Application of Asbestos Compound by Spraying." These detailed instructions set forth the placement and method for applying insulation to the inside surfaces of the steam turbine enclosures. Mr. Piper worked as a steamfitter at Morgantown. During the construction of the Unit 1 turbine, Mr. Piper worked on the steam piping that connected the Unit 1 turbine to another turbine.

In his complaint, Mr. Piper alleged that at that time he was unknowingly exposed to asbestos as a result of WECCO's installation of the insulating material that contained asbestos. According to WECCO's payroll records, the insulation was installed between May 3, 1970 and June 28, 1970, which made June 28, 1970 the last possible day of Mr. Piper's undisputed exposure to the asbestos containing insulation. Mr. Piper was diagnosed with mesothelioma on or about December 26, 2013. On March 26, 2014, he filed suit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against thirty-three defendants, including Westinghouse. 5 His four-count complaint against the various defendants alleged strict liability, breach of warranty, negligence, and "aiding and abetting and conspiracy," which stemmed from his work as a plumber and steamfitter from 1948 to 1990.

Specifically, Mr. Piper alleged that in connection with his employment, he used, worked with, or was exposed to asbestos products that were manufactured, supplied, and/or installed by the defendants. His complaint further alleged that some of the defendants failed to warn users that asbestos products contained "harmful, deleterious, carcinogenic and inherently dangerous asbestos dust and fibers which unreasonably endangered the life and health of persons using, working with or working around the asbestos products," and failed to protect users against these dangers. At the close of discovery on January 9, 2015, Westinghouse filed a motion for summary judgment, which Mr. Piper opposed. On March 3, 2015, the Circuit Court held a hearing on the open motions.

Westinghouse argued that Mr. Piper's causes of action against the corporation were barred by CJP § 5-108. Specifically, counsel for Westinghouse emphasized that the facts in the instant case were no different than the facts of Burns v. Bechtel Corp. , 212 Md. App. 237 , 66 A.3d 1187 (2013), where the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of a similarly situated defendant who successfully asserted that the statute of repose barred the plaintiff's claims in that case. 6 Westinghouse also argued that construing CJP § 5-108 as an applicable bar to Mr. Piper's claims would not infringe on any rights he possessed in 1970. Westinghouse contended that Mr. Piper could not have successfully brought a claim against the corporation at the time of his exposure because the exposure, at that time, had not manifested into a cognizable injury. In contrast, Mr. Piper maintained that his injury arose at the time of his asbestos exposure around June 28, 1970.

He asserted that John Crane, Inc. v. Scribner , 369 Md. 369 , 800 A.2d 727 (2002), was applicable precedent, and that the reasoning in that case confirmed that his cause of action "arose" on the date of his exposure to asbestos. Specifically, counsel for Mr. Piper argued that the Scribner analysis was directly applicable to the facts of this case because in Scribner , the Court of Appeals determined that in an asbestos-exposure related claim, a cause of action "arises" upon exposure to asbestos. Additionally, Mr. Piper's counsel contended that if the exposure predated the enactment of the statutory cap under § 11-108 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Maryland Code (1973, 2015 Repl. Vol.) ("CJP § 11-108"), then the statute could not retroactively apply to an injury or cause of action that "arose" prior to the statute's enactment.

According to Mr. Piper, the same was true here, such that the statute of repose could not apply retroactively when his injury, and, thus, his causes of action "arose" prior to enactment of the statute. Additionally, Mr. Piper relied on Section 2 of Ch. 666, which states that the statute does not apply to "actions arising on or before June 30, 1970," to advance his argument that the statute of repose does not bar his claims. Westinghouse, in response, contended that this Court's ruling in Scribner was a narrow holding that applied only to the statutory cap on noneconomic damages. Alternatively, counsel for Mr. Piper asserted that subsection (d)(2)(ii) of § 5-108 excluded Westinghouse on the basis that Westinghouse was a manufacturer 7 for purposes of the statute.

Westinghouse responded that it was not a manufacturer of an asbestos-containing product for purposes of subsection (d)(2)(ii) of § 5-108, and, therefore, the exception did not apply. At the close of the hearing, the Circuit Court granted Westinghouse's motion for summary judgment and entered an Order on May 14, 2015. Mr. Piper noted a timely appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. Pending the appeal, Mr. Piper passed away on June 2, 2016, and Ms. Duffy was appointed Personal Representative of Mr. Piper's Estate on June 17, 2016.

On May 31, 2017, in a reported opinion, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court's ruling. Duffy v. CBS Corp. , 232 Md. App. 602 , 161 A.3d 1 , cert. granted , 456 Md. 53 , 170 A.3d 290 (2017). The intermediate appellate court first considered the plain meaning of the language of CJP § 5-108(a). Id. at 613, 161 A.3d at 7 .

By characterizing Mr. Piper's injury as the mesothelioma diagnosis , the Court of Special Appeals concluded that Mr. Piper's cause of action did not "arise" or "accrue" until 2013. The intermediate appellate court reasoned that the diagnosis of mesothelioma was outside of the twenty-year limitations period set forth in the statute of repose beginning with the operation of the turbine. Id. at 615 , 161 A.3d at 8 . That court, therefore, concluded that the plain language of CJP § 5-108 barred Mr. Piper's claims.

Id. at 614 , 161 A.3d at 8 . Next, the Court of Special Appeals considered Mr. Piper's argument that the uncodified Section 2 of Ch. 666 demonstrated that the statute did not apply to "actions arising on or before June 30, 1970." Id. at 616 , 161 A.3d at 9 . The purpose of CJP § 5-108, according to the intermediate appellate court, was to "set a time limit after which the discovery rule could not operate[.]" Id. at 620 , 161 A.3d at 11 (quoting Hilliard & Bartko Joint Venture v. Fedco Sys., Inc., 309 Md. 147 , 160, 522 A.2d 961 , 968 (1987) ). With that purpose in mind, the intermediate appellate court concluded that the word "accruing," as used in the "purpose paragraph" 8 of Ch. 666, and the word "arising," as used in Section 2 of Ch. 666, must be construed to have the same meaning.

Id. The Court of Special Appeals concluded that interpreting the words "arise" and "accrue" as indistinguishable terms would avoid any ambiguity or conflict between the statute's purpose and Section 2 of the statute. Id. The Court of Special Appeals, however, did not reach the issues of whether Section 2 of Ch. 666 carried the force of law due to the General Assembly not having codified that section, whether Scribner's reasoning was applicable to the statute of repose, or whether the manufacturer exception contained in CJP § 5-108(d)(2)(ii) applied to Westinghouse.

Id. at 623-24, 161 A.3d at 13 . Ms. Duffy petitioned this court for certiorari , which we granted. Duffy v. CBS Corp. , 456 Md. 53 , 170 A.3d 290 (2017). Ms. Duffy posed three questions for our review. 9 Because we answer the first question in the affirmative and hold that the statute of repose does not apply to this case, we do not address the remaining questions.

Standard of Review This appeal concerns the Circuit Court's grant of summary judgment. When we review a grant of summary judgment we first determine whether there is a genuine dispute of material fact. Koste v. Town of Oxford , 431 Md. 14 , 24-25, 63 A.3d 582 , 589 (2013). If there is no genuine dispute of material fact, then we review the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine if the hearing judge's legal conclusions were correct.

Id. at 25 , 63 A.3d at 589 . Westinghouse and Ms. Duffy agree that the last possible day Mr. Piper could have been exposed to asbestos was June 28, 1970. The parties' contentions rest solely on the legal question of the applicability of CJP § 5-108 to Mr. Piper's causes of action. Accordingly, we review the trial court's decision for legal correctness.

See id. Discussion Our determination of whether "the Court of Special Appeals err[ed] in holding that the term 'arising' [as] used in Section 2 of the original statute of repose actually means 'accruing' in contravention of this Court's holding in John Crane, Inc. v. Scribner " requires resolution of two issues. First, in Part I, we determine whether the statute of repose applies as a bar to recovery for the injuries that Mr. Piper suffered. Specifically, we determine whether the statute is ambiguous as it relates to when an injury and a cause of action "arise" within the meaning of the statute of repose.

Second, in Part II, to settle any confusion created by the intermediate appellate court's interpretation of the statute, we take this opportunity to clarify when an asbestos related cause of action "arises" and "accrues". Specifically, we consider the applicability of the discovery rule in relation to the manifestation of a latent disease. If a statute's language is clear and unambiguous, the Court ordinarily looks no further than the statute itself. See Watts v. State , 457 Md. 419 , 179 A.3d 929 , 2018 WL 947746 (2018) ; see also Koste , 431 Md. at 25 -26 , 63 A.3d at 589 .

If the language of the statute is clear and remains consistent with the overall purpose of the statute, then we need not conduct any further analysis. See Rose v. Fox Pool Corp. , 335 Md. 351 , 359, 643 A.2d 906 , 910 (1994) (considering the legislative history of § 5-108 to hold that the statute was applicable to a cause of action concerning an injury that arose from a latent defect in the construction of a swimming pool). I. A Brief History of CJP § 5-108 We had occasion to discuss CJP § 5-108's legislative history in Rose , a case concerning § 5-108's applicability to a suit for injuries that resulted from a latent defect in the construction of an in-ground swimming pool. 335 Md. at 370 -71 , 643 A.2d at 915 (1994). After several attempts in the 1967, 1968, and 1969 legislative sessions, the General Assembly enacted Art. 57, § 20 in 1970 to provide repose to certain classes of defendants against causes of action brought by plaintiffs who had sustained injuries involving improvements to real property.

Id. at 365 , 643 A.2d at 912 -13 . Art. 57, § 20 provided: No action to recover damages for injury to property real or personal, or for bodily injury or wrongful death, arising out of the defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property, nor any action for contribution or indemnity for damages incurred as a result of said injury or death, shall be brought more than twenty years after the said improvement was substantially completed. This limitation shall not apply to any action brought against the person who, at the time the injury was sustained, was in actual possession and control as owner, tenant, or otherwise of the said improvement. For purposes of this section, "substantially completed" shall mean when the entire improvement is first available for its intended use.

Four years later, however, the General Assembly amended Article 57, § 20, as part of the larger Code revision. The language was changed in CJP § 5-108(a) from "[n]o action ... shall be brought" in Art. 57, § 20, to "[e]xcept as provided by this section, no cause of action for damages accrues ...." The revision also added subsection (c), which is now subsection (e) in the presently codified version. See Rose , 335 Md. at 366 , 643 A.2d at 913 . This addition provided a description of when a cause of action for wrongful death accrued under the statute. 10 The 1974 revised statute became CJP § 5-108 : (a) Injury resulting from improvement to realty .-Except as provided by this section, no cause of action for damages accrues and a person may not seek contribution or indemnity for damages incurred when wrongful death, personal injury, or injury to real or personal property resulting from the defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property occurs more than 20 years after the date the entire improvement first becomes available for its intended use.

(b) Exception .-This section does not apply if the defendant was in actual possession and control of the property as owner, tenant, or otherwise when the injury occurred. (c) When action accrues .-A cause of action for an injury described in this section accrues when the injury or damage occurs. In 1979, the General Assembly added what is currently subsection (b), and amended the section a year later. Id. at 366 , 643 A.2d at 913 . 11 The General Assembly subsequently amended the statute in 1991 in response to the multitude of asbestos-related cases being brought throughout the state, which we discuss in more detail later in this opinion.

Id. at 368-70 , 643 A.2d at 914 -15 . 12 Parties' Contentions The parties agree that the language of the statute of repose is clear and unambiguous. They rely, however, on different versions of the statute to advance their arguments. Westinghouse relies on the language in the presently codified version of CJP § 5-108. Specifically, Westinghouse asserts that pursuant to subsection (a) of CJP § 5-108, the Estate's claims are barred and its causes of action do not comport with any of the exceptions delineated in the statute.

Westinghouse further argues that in light of the defined exceptions under subsection § 5-108(d)(2), the " no cause of action " language of subsection (a) should be interpreted as a blanket prohibition against all other suits that do not satisfy the exceptions. The Estate, in contrast, relies on the language of Ch. 666, the session law that generated the initial statute of repose, Art. 57, § 20. In doing so, it contends that the Estate's causes of action "fall outside the temporal scope of the statute of repose" because the last possible day that Mr. Piper's undisputed asbestos exposure occurred was June 28, 1970, and Section 2 of Ch. 666 limits its applicability to injuries "arising" after June 30, 1970. Statutory Construction of Art. 57, § 20 When originally enacted in 1970, the statute of repose provided: No action to recover damages for injury to property real or personal, or for bodily injury or wrongful death, arising out of the defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property, nor any action for contribution or indemnity for damages incurred as a result of said injury or death, shall be brought more than twenty years after the said improvement was substantially completed.

This limitation shall not apply to any action brought against the person who, at the time the injury was sustained, was in actual possession and control as owner, tenant, or otherwise of the said improvement. For purposes of this section, "substantially completed" shall mean when the entire improvement is first available for its intended use. Art. 57, § 20. The plain language of the statute of repose provided that the statute will bar an action for injury or death "arising out of" the defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property twenty years after substantial completion of the improvement.

Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language (1961) defines the word "arise" as "to originate from a specified source ... to come into being ... to become operative esp. in such a way as to attract attention ... to appear above the horizon ... to come about: come up: take place." The plain meaning of the word "arise" suggests that the statute of repose would apply to causes of actions for injuries that originated or came into being as a result of a defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property. 13 The "Exposure Approach" Section 2 of Ch. 666 plainly expressed that the statute did not apply retroactively to injuries when it provided that the act "shall not apply to any cause of action arising on or before June 30, 1970." In Scribner , we adopted the "exposure approach" for determining when a cause of action arises in the context of actions to recover damages for injuries related to asbestos exposure. 369 Md. at 394 , 800 A.2d at 742 . In that case we determined when a cause of action related to asbestos exposure arises for purposes of the statutory cap on noneconomic damages related to personal injury or wrongful death. Id. Scribner concerned actions grounded in wrongful death and survival that stemmed from exposure to products containing asbestos, where the decedent's last day of exposure occurred sometime in 1978.

Id. CJP § 11-108, the statutory cap on noneconomic damages, went into effect on July 1, 1986. After the jury awarded the plaintiff damages in excess of $5,000,000, the defendants appealed, contending, in part, that the statutory cap applied to limit the award for noneconomic damages. Id. at 374 , 800 A.2d at 730 .

After considering three possible approaches for determining when a cause of action arises, this Court rested on the "exposure approach," which requires a trial court to look at the plaintiff's last day of exposure to the asbestos-containing product. Id. at 394 , 800 A.2d at 742 . Recognizing the drawbacks to each approach, this Court concluded that the "exposure approach" was the most appropriate in asbestos-exposure cases. Id. at 391-93 , 800 A.2d at 740 -41 .

Starting from the premise that "[i]f there is no injury, there is no cause of action[,]" the Court recognized that "[w]hether the injury sued upon is cancer or asbestosis, the plaintiff must, at the outset, establish that he or she has that disease[.]" Id. at 391-92 , 800 A.2d at 740 . The issue for the trial court, then, is to resolve "when that injury came into existence" for the purpose of determining whether the injury occurred before or after the effective date of CJP § 11-108. Id. at 392 , 800 A.2d at 740 . We apply Scribner's "exposure approach" with equal force to the facts of the present case.

Accordingly, we hold that when determining whether a plaintiff's injury relating to asbestos exposure arose prior to the effective date of the statute of repose, the date of the plaintiff's last exposure to asbestos-containing products applies. See Scribner , 369 Md. at 394 , 800 A.2d at 742 . The insidious nature of asbestos-related diseases and the purpose of the statute of repose bolster our conclusion to apply the "exposure approach." In light of our application of the "exposure approach," we turn now to the effective date of the statute. Statutes of repose are defendant-focused statutes that insulate defendants from liability after a specified date.

Rose , 335 Md. at 362 -63 , 643 A.2d at 911 -12 . When considering the purpose of statutes of repose, and Sections 2 and 3 of Art. 57 § 20, it is clear that the General Assembly did not intend to retroactively insulate from liability defendants for injuries that they had already caused prior to the enactment of the statute. See Ch. 666, Section 2. In Slate v. Zitomer , we explained that there is a "general presumption [ ] that all statutes ... are intended to operate prospectively and the presumption is found to have been rebutted only if there are clear expressions in the statute to the contrary." 275 Md. 534 , 541, 341 A.2d 789 , 793 (1975) (emphasis added) (quoting State Farm v. Hearn , 242 Md. 575 , 582, 219 A.2d 820 , 824 (1966) (internal quotation marks omitted) ).

"This rule of construction is particularly applicable where the statute adversely affects substantive rights, rather than only altering [the] procedural machinery." Id. at 541, 341 A.2d at 794 ( State Farm v. Hearn , 242 Md. 575 , 582, 219 A.2d 820 , 824 (1966) (internal quotation marks omitted) ). A statute of repose operates to protect substantive rights of the defendant by limiting a defendant's liability after a prescribed date. See Anderson v. United States , 427 Md. 99 , 120, 46 A.3d 426 , 439 (2012). Westinghouse argued that the statute of repose applied to bar Mr. Piper's causes of action because his causes of action "accrued" 14 in 2013, well after the effective date of the statute.

We disagree with the conclusion that the statute of repose applies under the circumstances here. Before the statute went into effect, Westinghouse had already executed the contract for the installation of the asbestos-containing insulation, and Mr. Piper indisputably had already inhaled the asbestos fibers contained in the insulation materials installed by WECCO. The last possible day of Mr. Piper's exposure to asbestos-containing products occurred no later than June 28, 1970, and it was at that point when his injury and causes of action arose. See Ch. 666, Section 3 ("This Act shall take effect July 1, 1970.").

By the time of the effective date of the statute of repose, Mr. Piper had already suffered an injury. See Scribner , 369 Md. at 394 , 800 A.2d at 742 . Because the statute went into effect after Mr. Piper's injury arose, the statute could not conceivably bar his causes of action for strict liability, negligence, breach of contract, and "aiding and abetting and conspiracy." It is the date of Mr. Piper's injury-not the date of discovery of his cause of action-that guides our analysis because "[i]f there is no injury, there is no cause of action." Scribner , 369 Md. at 391 -92 , 800 A.2d at 740 . Mr. Piper's diagnosis of mesothelioma in 2013 merely put him on notice that he had suffered an injury on a prior date and, therefore, may have causes of action that came into being as a result of his injury.

It follows that if Mr. Piper had not been injured on or before June 28, 1970, then he would not have causes of action that arose in 1970, and, therefore, would have no viable causes of action in 2013. See id. at 392 , 800 A.2d at 740 . To be sure, if Mr. Piper had not been injured when alleged, there would have been no latent disease to discover in 2013. Id. at 390 , 800 A.2d at 739 .

We, therefore, hold that the statute of repose does not apply to bar Mr. Piper's causes of action.

II

We turn now to the opinion of the Court of Special Appeals. We acknowledge that the Court of Special Appeals arrived at a different result than the one we reach now. The Court of Special Appeals treated Mr. Piper's diagnosis of mesothelioma as his injury, rather than treating his exposure to asbestos as his injury. See Duffy , 232 Md. App. at 614 -15 , 161 A.3d at 8 .

The Court of Special Appeals primarily examined Ch. 666's stated purpose to interpret the plain language of the statute. As we will discuss, the intermediate appellate court's reasoning falters in several respects. Operating from the premise that Mr. Piper's injury was his diagnosis of mesothelioma, the intermediate appellate court concluded that the statute of repose applied at the moment that Mr. Piper received his diagnosis. Id.

It concluded from the plain language of CJP § 5-108 that Mr. Piper's causes of action "did not accrue within 20 years" of the time in which Respondent placed the turbine into operation. Id. Accordingly, the intermediate appellate court concluded that CJP § 5-108 barred Mr. Piper's action. Id.

Next, the Court of Special Appeals addressed Mr. Piper's contention that his "injury" was exposure to asbestos and, thus, arose on the date of his last exposure, as explained in Scribner . Id. at 616 , 161 A.3d at 9 . Mr. Piper argued, as his Estate does before us, that the uncodified Section 2 of Ch. 666 demonstrated that the statute did not apply as a bar to "actions arising on or before June 30, 1970." Id. at 615 , 161 A.3d at 9 . The Court of Special Appeals disagreed and pointed to the word "accruing," which is contained in the paragraph stating the statute's purpose 15 of Ch. 666, and the word "arising," which is contained in Section 2 16 of Ch. 666.

The intermediate appellate court determined that the words must be construed as having the same meaning. Id. at 620 , 161 A.3d at 11 . As that court explained, the purpose of CJP § 5-108 was to "set a time limit after which the discovery rule could not operate[.]" Id. at 619 , 161 A.3d at 11 (quoting Hilliard & Bartko Joint Venture v. Fedco Sys., Inc., 309 Md. 147 , 160, 522 A.2d 961 , 968 (1987) ). With that purpose in mind, the intermediate appellate court explained that "a cause of action based on a latent defect or injury that had not accrued under the discovery rule was cut off after twenty years from the time the improvement first became available for its intended use." Id. at 620, 161 A.3d at 11 (emphasis added).

The Court of Special Appeals justified its interpretation of Mr. Piper's injury as the discovery of his mesothelioma, reasoning that to do otherwise "would create a class of unaccrued causes of action exempted from the statute where the latent defect or injury was present prior to July 1, 1970." Id. The Court of Special Appeals concluded, therefore, that "[s]uch a construction is contrary to the 'clear' purpose of Chapter 666." Id. (citing Hilliard & Bartko Joint Venture v. Fedco Sys., Inc., 309 Md. 147 , 160, 522 A.2d 961 , 968 (1987) ). The rationale of the Court of Special Appeals is misguided for several reasons.

First, the intermediate appellate court disregarded the entire evolution of CJP § 5-108. Duffy , 232 Md. App. at 618 , 161 A.3d at 10 . It aptly noted that Art. 57, § 20 was amended in 1974. Id. at 619 , 161 A.3d at 11 .

At that time, what is presently subsection § 5-108(e) was added as subsection (c), and the subsection provided that "[a] cause of action for an injury described in this section accrues when the injury or damage occurs." Id. at 619 , 161 A.3d at 11 (quoting CJP § 5-108 ). The Court of Special Appeals explained that under CJP § 5-108(e)" 'when the injury or damages occurs,' means when the injury or damage is discovered." Id. at 615 , 161 A.3d at 8 (citing Burns v. Bechtel Corp. , 212 Md. App.