Appellant says investigation uncovered artificial fill in June 2022; agencies participated in review

Appellant's counsel told the court that after noticing a sinkhole the plaintiff promptly engaged engineering firms and followed a multi-step investigative process that ultimately identified artificial fill on the property.

"He immediately hired an engineer, Pacific Engineering Technologies to investigate the situation," John Yip said, describing the sequence of referrals that led to a geotechnical evaluation. Yip told the panel the geotech concluded the material in question was artificial fill, a finding that led counsel to suspect prior undisclosed activity by the sellers. He said the fill was discovered in June 2022 and that multiple agencies were involved during the investigation.

Respondents disputed that the discovery of fill changes the limitations analysis and emphasized the earlier observable harm (sinkholes and erosion) and the January 2021 engineering contact. Yip noted the investigation involved outside agencies: "the investigation also involved multiple agencies, like The US Army Corps Of Engineers and the Department of Fish and Wildlife." The court did not resolve factual disputes at argument and took the case under advisement.