have led to easonable care and diligence should have ascertained, the nature and cause of his injury, or 2) at death, whichever first occurs”) (emphasis added); Harig v. Johns-Manville Products Corp., 284 Md. 70, 83, 394 A.2d 299 (1978) (concluding that, “in situations involving the latent development of disease, a plaintiffs cause of action accrues when he ascertains, or through the exercise of reasonable care and diligence, should have ascertained, the nature and cause of his injury”) (emphasis added); Benjamin, 162 Md.App. at 197, 873 A.2d 463 (suggesting that Trimper “indicates that the knowledge that a reasonable investigation would disclose is probably not sufficient if it would only show injury”); Young v. Medlantic Laboratory P’ship, 125 Md.App. 299, 305-06, 312, 725 A.2d 572 (<HOLDING>) and concluding “that the trial court erred in
holding that in an environmental contamination ease a cause of action accrues  when a plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of his or her cause of action and of the identity of a party or parties who may be responsible for the injury recognizing cause of action recognizing that under the discovery rule a cause of action accrues thereby triggering the limitations period when the patient discovers or should have discovered that he or she has a cause of action recognizing the cause of action holding that a cause of action accrues when the claimant knew or reasonably should have known of the wrong