surrounding the general nature of damages during the limitations period, although the extent of damages may not have been known); Uhler v. Doak, 268 Mont. 191, 200, 885 P.2d 1297 (1994) (noting, “[t]he fact that some court had not formally dismissed [the plaintiff’s] claim . . . simply related to the issue of whether they had notice of their damage”); Finlayson v. Sanbrook, 10 Cal. App. 4th 1436, 13 Cal. Rptr. 2d 406 (1992) (finding the client’s injury occurred when the underlying suit was time barred, and knowledge existed prior to the running of the statute of limitations). ¶15 Some jurisdictions appear to follow the rule urged by the Huffs and effectively toll the statute of limitations until the underlying claim is concluded. See Wagner v. Sellinger, 847 A.2d 1151, 1156 (D.C. 2004) (<HOLDING>); Lucey v. Law Offices of Pretzel & Stouffer,
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 plaintiffs could not sue attorneys for legal malpractice so long as underlying medical malpractice action out of which legal malpractice claim arose was still pending on appeal holding that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the alleged malpractice is discovered recognizing that statute of limitations questions may be resolved on a motion to dismiss holding in a legal malpractice case the statute of limitations is not triggered by a potential injury until the underlying lawsuit is resolved