Discovery Rule: Willis v. Maverick, 760 S.W.2d 642, 644 (Tex.1988) (“[t]he discovery rule is the legal principle which, when applicable, provides that limitations run from the date the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered, in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence, the nature of the injury”).
Fraudulent Concealment: Gaddis v. Smith, 417 S.W.2d 577, 579-580 (Tex. 1967) (“Texas Courts have not invariably ignored the inability to know of the existence of the cause of action in determining when such cause of action accrues. For example, a cause of action based on actionable fraud accrues when the fraud is discovered, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered”).
Disability: Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.001, § 16.022.
Military Service: Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.001, § 16.022.
Death: Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.062.
Absence from State: Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.063.
Misnomer: Enserch Corp. v. Parker, 794 S.W.2d 2, 4-5 (Tex. 1990) (“Texas courts have recognized a distinction between misnomer and misidentification. If the plaintiff merely misnames the correct defendant (misnomer), limitations is tolled and a subsequent amendment of the petition relates back to the date of the original petition. If, however, the plaintiff is mistaken as to which of two defendants is the correct one and there is actually existing a corporation with the name of the erroneously named defendant (misidentification), then the plaintiff has sued the wrong party and limitations is not tolled”); Chilkewitz v. Hyson, 22 S.W.3d 825, 830 (Tex.1999) (“[i]n misidentification cases, limitations may be tolled when a plaintiff sues an incorrect entity if there are two separate but related entities that use a similar trade name and the correct entity had notice of the suit and was not misled or disadvantaged by the mistake”).
Estoppel: Frank v. Bradshaw, 920 S.W.2d 699, 701 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ) (holding statute of limitations could be tolled where the defendant’s insurance company paid for the damage to plaintiffs’ car, and the insurance adjuster told the plaintiffs that it would pay their medical bills when their personal injury protection funds ran out, and also specifically represented that there was “no time limit problem with the filing of the medical bills and the payment of their claims”).