VF-410.Statute of Limitations—Delayed Discovery—Reasonable
Investigation Would Not Have Disclosed Pertinent Facts
We answer the questions submitted to us as follows:
1. Did [name of plaintiff]’s claimed harm occur before [insert date
from applicable statute of limitations]?
1. Yes No
1. If your answer to question 1 is yes, then answer question 2. If
you answered no, stop here, answer no further questions, and
have the presiding juror sign and date this form.
2. Before [insert date from applicable statute of limitations], did [name
of plaintiff] know of facts that would have caused a reasonable
person to suspect that [he/she/it] had suffered harm that was
caused by someone’s wrongful conduct?
2. Yes No
2. Would a reasonable and diligent investigation have disclosed
before [insert date from applicable statute of limitations] that
[specify factual basis for cause of action, e.g., “a medical device” or
“inadequate medical treatment”] contributed to [name of plaintiff]’s
2. Yes No
Signed: Presiding Juror
After [this verdict form has/all verdict forms have] been signed, notify
the [clerk/bailiff/court attendant] that you are ready to present your
verdict in the courtroom.
New December 2007; Revised December 2010
Directions for Use
The special verdict forms in this section are intended only as models. They may
need to be modiﬁed depending on the facts of the case.
This verdict form is based on CACI No. 454, Affırmative Defense—Statute of
Limitations, and CACI No. 455, Statute of Limitations—Delayed Discovery. If the
only issue is whether the plaintiff’s harm occurred before or after the limitation