an amended complaint against RSC. RSC subsequently moved for sum- raary judgment based on the one-year statute of limitations. The district court did not rule on the motion for summary judgment, finding that its resolution involved determinative issues of state law for which the decisions of this Court “do not appear to provide controlling precedent.” Accordingly, it certified the following questions to this Court: 1. Whether Tennessee’s “discovery rule” exception to the accrual of a caus ded Care & Rehab., 273 A.D.2d 190, 709 N.Y.S.2d 108, 110 (N.Y.App.Div.2000) (remaining disability of injured person tolls the statute of limitations, whether or not a personal representative has filed actions on individual’s behalf); Young v. Key Pharm., Inc., 112 Wash.2d 216, 770 P.2d 182, 186 (1989) (<HOLDING>). We recognize that the disability of minority
holding that tolling statute applicable to incompetent plaintiffs continues in effect in spite of appointment of guardian ad litem holding that washingtons statute tolls the statute of limitations for a legally incompetent person notwithstanding the appointment of a guardian this is so because the right to the tolling statute vests in the incompetent person not in the guardian from this premise it follows that the guardians subsequent actions on the incompetent persons behalf should have no additional effect upon the statute of limitations unless they result in res judicata holding that the appointment of a guardian for a mentally incompetent or nonage person does not have the effect of commencing the running of the period of limitations tolled by virtue of the disability holding that appointment of guardian over incompetent adult does not remove legal disability so as to halt tolling and commence running of statute of limitations recognizing that statute of limitations may be tolled indefinitely for legally incompetent persons