23 A.L.R.2d 1056, at § 6 (1952) (citing authorities relying on American Surety). We have applied it, albeit in a slightly different context, holding that under fidelity bond and California law, “discovery” occurs once an insured becomes aware of facts that would cause a reasonable person to assume a loss had been or would be incurred. See Calif. Union Ins. Co., 948 F.2d at 563. In other words, “discovery of loss does not occur until the insured discovers facts showing that dishonest acts occurred and appreciates the significance of those facts; suspicion of loss is not enough.” Id. (emphasis added) (citing F.D.I.C. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 903 F.2d 1073, 1079 (6th Cir.1990)). See also, e.g., Resolution Trust Corp. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 205 F.3d 615, 630-31 (3d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Calif. Union Ins. Co., 948 F.2d at
holding that discovery  does not occur until the insured discovers facts showing that dis honest acts occurred and appreciates the significance of those facts  holding that the proper standard to apply  is to assume that the facts have occurred as reported and then determine  whether those facts constitute a violation of law or rule adopted pursuant to law holding that some operative facts did occur in the district of columbia where nonfiling or misfilings with the sec occurred holding that nature and occasion of offenses are facts inherent in convictions and those facts need not be alleged in indictment or submitted to jury holding that facts showing scienter are among those that constitute the violation  and must be discovered for a claim to accrue