How Does Fraudulent Concealment Toll the Statute of Limitations in Georgia?

If a defendant is “guilty of a fraud by which the plaintiff has been debarred or deterred from bringing an action”, the limitation period runs “only from the time of the plaintiff’s discovery of the fraud” (O.C.G.A. § 9-3-96). The Supreme Court of Georgia requires three things: actual fraud, fraud that concealed the claim, and reasonable diligence by the plaintiff. In an ordinary injury case, the fraud must also be a separate act from the injury itself.

Actual fraud, concealment, and diligence

In Daniel v. Amicalola Electric Membership Corp. (2011), the Supreme Court listed them: the plaintiff must prove “(1) the defendant committed actual fraud; (2) the fraud concealed the cause of action from the plaintiff; and (3) the plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence to discover his cause of action despite his failure to do so within the statute of limitation”.

Daniel also shows what does not count. A utility cleared timber on the plaintiffs’ land without consent; the plaintiffs saw the damage when it happened. They argued the utility later misled them about its easement and future plans. The Court held that did not toll the claim for the completed clearing, because nothing concealed that claim and nothing told them not to sue for it.

In an injury case, the fraud must be a separate act

The Supreme Court divides fraud tolling into two situations, set out in Shipman v. Horizon Corp. (1980) and applied in Rai v. Reid (2013):

	When the lawsuit is about fraud itself	When the lawsuit is about something else (an injury, a death)
What must be shown	The fraud that is the basis of the claim	"a separate independent actual fraud involving moral turpitude which debars and deters the plaintiff from bringing his action"
When the period runs	From when the fraud was or should have been discovered	From discovery of that separate fraud

Rai is the example. A man arranged the murder of his daughter-in-law and concealed his role; the estate’s claim for her pain and suffering was filed after the two-year period had run. The Supreme Court held the estate’s claim arose from the murder, not from fraud, and that concealing his identity was not the separate fraud the rule requires. The $100,000 award for pain and suffering was reversed as time-barred. The family’s claim deadline after a criminal death is explained in the Georgia wrongful death statute of limitations.

Knowledge ends the protection

Tolling stops when the plaintiff knows enough. In Dove v. Ty Cobb Healthcare Systems, Inc. (2010), a daughter sued a nursing home for injuries to her mother. The Court of Appeals applied the rule that “even if evidence of fraud exists, the statute of limitation is not tolled when the plaintiff knew all facts necessary to show malpractice before the running of the period of limitation”. The daughter had seen the injuries during her visits, so the claim was not saved.

The question is what the plaintiff knew or should have known, not whether every detail of the wrongdoing had been confirmed.

Medical malpractice: the shorter clock moves, the outer limit does not

Section 9-3-73(a) makes the tolling rules of Article 5, including § 9-3-96, apply to malpractice claims. That affects the two-year period. It does not affect the five-year repose:

In Esener v. Kinsey (1999), the Court of Appeals held that fraud “does not toll the statute of repose”, but a provider whose fraud the patient reasonably relied on can be estopped from raising repose as a defense.
In Simmons v. Sonyika (2005), the Supreme Court held that the unrepresented-estate provision of Article 5, § 9-3-92, does not toll the malpractice repose, citing Esener for the point that even fraud does not.

The repose rules are in the five-year malpractice repose and its exceptions.

What a fraud-tolling argument needs before filing

A specific act or statement by the defendant (or someone it is responsible for) that was false or misleading.
Proof that the act kept the plaintiff from knowing about the claim or from suing.
In an injury case, proof that the act was separate from the conduct that caused the injury.
A record of what the plaintiff did to investigate, and when the truth became known.

Tolling under § 9-3-96 is one of several rules that can change a deadline; the others are listed in how long you have to file a Georgia personal injury claim.

Sources

General information about Georgia law as of October 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.