Plaintiff from discovering the causes of action and filing this lawsuit. Plaintiff argues that it is contrary to the public policy of Tennessee to allow Defendants to profit from their own fraudulent concealment. Plaintiffs argument, although appealing on its face, is best directed toward the Tennessee legislature. Had the legislature intended to provide equitable exceptions to the statute of repose, it could have done so. Tennessee courts have consistently read all statutes of repose literally, and have declined to read equitable exceptions into them. See Cronin v. Howe, 906 S.W.2d 910, 913 (Tenn.1995) (statute of repose is an “absolute” limit “superimposed upon the existing statute [of limitations]” absent statutory exceptions); Harrison v. Schrader, 569 S.W.2d 822, 824 (Tenn.1978) (<HOLDING>). This Court holds that the Tennessee Supreme
holding that statute of repose acts as an outer limit or ceiling within which all suits must be brought holding that in statute authorizing suits against united states limits time period in which such suits may be brought united states retains its sovereign immunity as to any suits brought outside of that time period therefore court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over suit against united states that is barred by statute of limitations recognizing that tilas statute of repose acts to limit the clouding of a propertys title holding that provision has the characteristics of a statute of repose holding that the 3year limit is a period of repose