the doctrine of adverse domination. Depending on the jurisdiction, the doctrine of adverse domination was “applied either to delay the accrual of a cause of action, or to toll limitations....” Id. at 339, 635 A.2d 394 (internal citations omitted). According to the Court, “the principles of adverse domination are more logically applied to determine accrual of a claim.” Id. at 345, 635 A.2d 394. It reasoned: “The doctrine is premised upon the understanding that knowledge of a claim by defendant directors cannot reasonably be imputed to the corporation.” Id. Yet, the Court also observed: “[W]here the legislature has not provided guidance, it has been left to the Court to define the process for determining accrual.” Id. See also Furst v. Isom, 85 Md.App. 407, 420, 584 A.2d 108 (1991) (<HOLDING>). To be sure, there are competing policy
holding that the plaintiffs claims under  22a452 were barred by the statute of limitations but declining to decide which statute to apply holding that the statute of limitations defense does not deprive court of subject matter jurisdiction to the extent the statute of limitations may be considered in any sense a jurisdictional impediment it is one which can be waived holding it is the payment and not the request which triggers the statute recognizing that the enactment of a savings statute is a decision which rests solely with the legislature permitting plaintiffs to pursue action that had a technical defect which was not timely corrected because they relied on the ruling of an authorized decision maker and carving out a narrow exception to avoid allowing statute of limitations to be used as a shield under circumstances in which it is clearly unjust and does not effectuate the purpose the statute is designed to vindicate holding a statute of limitations defense does not deprive court of subject matter jurisdiction to the extent the statute of limitations may be considered in any sense a jurisdictional impediment it is one which can be waived