v. Schmid Laboratories, Inc., 451 N.W.2d 133, 137 (N.D.1990) (citations omitted). In this case, it is apparently undisputed that the Simes’ cause of action accrued more than two years prior to instituting this action. 3 .Section 28-01-18, N.D.C.C., sets forth in part: "Actions having two-year limitations. The following actions must be commenced within two years after the claim for relief has accrued: ****** 3. An action for the recovery of damages resulting from malpractice_” 4 . We recognize that some authorities consider malpractice to be a specia .2d 432 (Ky.Ct.App.1988) (recognizing that a civil engineer was a professional for purposes of malpractice statute of limitations); but see Hocking Conservancy Dist. v. Dodson-Lindblom Assocs., Inc., 62 Ohio St.2d 195, 404 N.E.2d 164 (1980) (<HOLDING>). 6 .Other cases which the Simes cite for the
holding that the statute of limitations defense does not deprive court of subject matter jurisdiction to the extent the statute of limitations may be considered in any sense a jurisdictional impediment it is one which can be waived holding that statute of limitations for malpractice begins to run when plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the alleged malpractice holding that engineering was not one of the traditional professions at common law and accordingly not subject to the malpractice statute of limitations holding that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the alleged malpractice is discovered holding in the professional malpractice context that the guiding principle is that the statute of limitations commences to run when one is actually damaged as a result of the alleged malpractice and that the commencement of the statute will not be put off until one learns the full extent of his damages internal quotation marks omitted