the full extent of their damage due to this error until later, because “SSR sent out letters to investors after the September [sic] 2008 suspension of redemptions suggesting that the return of investor capital was imminent in ... 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011,” (id. ¶ 89), Plaintiffs knew they were damaged in October 2008 and were put on inquiry notice with regard to this claim, (id. ¶ 19 (“After SSR suspended redemptions in October 2008, the Trust could do nothing as all of its investment in SSR was lost.”); id. ¶ 96 (“After initially reaching a peak value in September 2008 of $3,904 million (when the redemption should have been effected), the reported SSR investment account balance has dropped every single month thereafter.”).) See Beesley v. Van Doren, 873 P.2d 1280, 1282 (Alaska 1994) (<HOLDING>). For the above reasons, any claim in the SAC
holding that the statute of limitations for attorney malpractice may begin to run before the plaintiff knows the full extent of his damages holding in the professional malpractice context that the guiding principle is that the statute of limitations commences to run when one is actually damaged as a result of the alleged malpractice and that the commencement of the statute will not be put off until one learns the full extent of his damages internal quotation marks omitted holding that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the alleged malpractice is discovered holding that statute of limitations for malpractice begins to run when plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the alleged malpractice holding that one need not know full extent of ones damages before limitation period begins to run as statute of limitations can be triggered at some time before full extent of damages is sustained