one on notice that the fraud reasonably should be discovered. Ex Parte American General Finance, Inc., 795 So.2d at 689-690 (internal quotations and citations omitted; last emphasis added). “The Foremost decision reestablished that the objective standard for determining the accrual date for a fraud claim imposes a duty to read documents received in connection with a particular transaction.” Owens v. Life Insurance Co. of Georgia, 289 F.Supp.2d 1319, 1326 (M.DAla.2003). Therefore, a fraud claim accrues upon a plaintiffs “receipt of a document or contract alerting the plaintiff to the possibility of fraud if the plaintiff could have read and understood such document and chose to ignore its written terms.” Id.; See also Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Abston, 822 So.2d 1187, 1195 (Ala.2001) (<HOLDING>) Two limitations to the Foremost rule have been
holding that inquiry notice triggers an investors duty to exercise reasonable diligence and that the  statute of limitations period begins to run once the investor in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered the facts underlying the alleged fraud holding that limitation period begins to run at the time of the breach holding that the limitations period begins to run when the plaintiff was privy to facts which would provoke inquiry in the mind of a person of reasonable prudence and which if followed up would have led to the discovery of the fraud holding that the statute of limitations period begins to run when the allegedly discriminatory pension plan is applied to the plaintiffs and leaving determination of the actual date the statute begins to run on each claim to the district court holding that the statute of limitations begins to run under federal law when plaintiffs knew or should have known of the injury which forms the basis of their claims