knows or should know of the potential claim. Lumsden v. Design Tech Builders, Inc., 358 Md. 435, 443-44, 749 A.2d 796, 801 (2000). The discovery rule acts to balance principles of fairness and judicial economy in those situations in which a diligent plaintiff may be unaware of an injury or harm during the statutory period. Pennwalt Corp. v. Nasios, 314 Md. 433, 440-41, 550 A.2d 1155, 1159 (1988). This stan dard, however, does not require actual knowledge on the part of the plaintiff, but may be satisfied if the plaintiff is on “inquiry notice.” Am. Gen. Assurance Co. v. Pappano, 374 Md. 339, 351, 822 A.2d 1212, 1219 (2003); Doe v. Archdiocese of Washington, 114 Md.App. 169, 188-89, 689 A.2d 634, 644 (1997). A plaintiff is put oh inquiry notice when he, she, o .Rptr. 124, 126 (1974) (<HOLDING>). The discovery rule is premised on the
holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding that tort actions based on inducement of breach of contract begin to accrue no later than the date of the breach that has been tortiously induced holding that court of claims has jurisdiction over actions for breach of standard contract holding that there must be a tort distinguishable from or independent of the breach of contract in order for a party to bring a valid claim in tort based on a breach in a contractual relationship