With respect to the legal disability statute, this Court has previously concluded that “[t]he legislative purpose involved ... is to declare that statutes of limitation do not begin to run until a person’s disability is removed.” Arnold v. Davis, 503 S.W.2d 100, 102 (Tenn.1973). We also agree with our Court of Appeals that “ ‘exceptions to a limitations statute in favor of persons under disability should be strictly construed and never extended beyond their plain import.’ ” Owen v. Summers, 97 S.W.3d 114, 123 (Tenn.Ct.App.2001) (quoting Smith v. Grumman-Olsen Corp., 913 F.Supp. 1077, 1083 (E.D.Tenn.1995)). As noted by the district court in its certification order, the legal disability statute gives the legal representatives of minor persons and those o 26 S.W.2d 436, 438 (1939) (<HOLDING>); Green v. Lombard, 28 Md.App. 1, 343 A.2d 905,
holding that tolling provisions of 60515 apply only if the disability occurs during the running of the statute of limitations under 60513 holding that the appointment of a conservator will not cease the tolling of the statute of limitations for those of unsound mind holding that the express provisions of article 4590i exclude the unsound mind tolling provision of texcivprac  remcode ann  16001a2 and b holding that under oklahoma law the tolling statute preserves a legallydisabled persons cause of action regardless of whether he is represented by a guardian who might otherwise bring the action within the normal limitation period holding that tolling accorded to persons of unsound mind continued during disability regardless that next friend might have sued