the fact constituting the fraud, after which he must have two years within which to prosecute his action.” Ala. Code § 6-2-3 (1993). Discovery is normally triggered upon the plaintiffs receipt of a document that would put one on notice such that the fraud could be reasonably discovered. E.g., Jackson v. Secor Bank, 646 So.2d 1377, 1379 (Ala.1994) (citing Hickox v. Stover, 551 So.2d 259, 262 (Ala.1989)). However, this rule does not apply equally to illiterate plaintiffs. Foster v. Life Ins. Co. of Georgia, 656 So.2d 333, 336 (Ala.1994). The Foster court held that the insurance “brochure, application, and policy documents could not have put [the plaintiff] on notice because she was illiterate and incapable of reading them.” Id. See also Wilson v. Draper, 406 So.2d 429 (Ala.Civ.App.1981) (<HOLDING>). The Foster court also rebuffed the
holding that the statute of limitations did not begin to run against an illiterate plaintiff until more than a year after the plaintiff signed a deed containing evidence of disputed land price holding at least under the facts of the case that the statute of limitations in a medical malpractice action did not begin to run until the plaintiff secured a specific medical diagnosis holding that the statute of limitations for an attorney malpractice suit did not begin to run until the client had suffered some actual damage holding that the statute of limitations for attorney malpractice may begin to run before the plaintiff knows the full extent of his damages holding that a notice of claim period did not begin to run until discovery of the injury