toll the statute of limitations unless the defendants made representations that they knew or should have known would induce the plaintiff to put off bring ing suit and the plaintiff did, in fact, delay-in reliance on the representations. Olsen, 388 Mass. at 176, 445 N.E.2d 609. The “hypoallergenic” label was not intended to dissuade potential plaintiffs from bringing suit against the glove manufacturer, and there is no evidence that the labeling was fraudulent. Thus, estoppel will not toll the statute of limitations in this case. Other Massachusetts courts have found summary judgment to be appropriate in cases where plaintiffs could be charged with notice of their latex allergies outside of the statutory limitations period. See Zamboni v. Aladan Corp., 304 F.Supp.2d 218 (D.Mass.2004)(<HOLDING>); Starer v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 2003 WL
holding that cause of action for malpractice had accrued before underlying actions dismissal holding that cause of action accrued before formal diagnosis of latex allergy when plaintiff had previously suspected that she might be allergic to latex holding that cause of action against latex glove manufacturers accrued when plaintiff first suspected a latex allergy holding that the payments accrued holding that the cause of action accrued on the date of sale