It turned out that the equipment manufacturer`s lawyers had sent the applicants` lawyer a toll agreement for the cases in which the device was concerned, according to which the toll period would be triggered by lawyers without notification of the applicants. As the devil is in the writing, we literally put relevant terms: Id. to 2 (by adding the highlight). The text highlighted at the end will be important because counsel for the complainants executed the toll agreement on August 9, 2013, but did not pass on the complainant`s name (and therefore the toll) until February 3, 2014, more than two years after the applicant`s proceedings. Id. at 2. Prior to 2015, when the United States was a defendant, a fair toll could not be applied against the United States, as the spending clause was interpreted by the Supreme Court to only give Congress the power to waive sovereign immunity, and statutes of limitations are interpreted as a condition for the lifting of sovereign immunity limiting a court`s jurisdiction to rule on cases against the United States. In April 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that, despite the spending clause, a fair toll applies in the United States.  It was decided that a fair toll would apply primarily where the applicant is actively misled by the defendant about the means or is prevented from asserting his rights in an exceptional manner. It is also important that the fair toll doctrine does not require fault on the part of the defendant, such as fraud or misrepresentation.
 The Arizona courts have recognized and applied the fair toll doctrine.  For example, state courts have allowed a fair toll: approval of a toll agreement may also be more about business than trial strategy. If, in the past, the parties have maintained a mutually beneficial business relationship and hope to do so in the future, while maintaining their legal rights, a toll agreement can achieve this. In some professional sports leagues, such as. B in the National Hockey League, the toll of a player`s contract to allow for a break or delay in the start of a contract may be made under certain conditions when a player signs his first contract in the NHL. This toll is defined as an “entry-level slide” that can occur for up to two seasons. This is from Schedule 16.4 of the current NHL collective bargaining agreement.  A fair toll may also be possible in states such as Arizona, where there are no operational executive orders justifying the limitation period on the basis of the urgency of the COVID 19 pandemic. This argument is much less persuasive, however, because, as has already been mentioned, the parties do not rely on the orders of their own government. Otherwise, it will be difficult to demonstrate assiduity or exceptional circumstances, as the parties are still technically in a position to take legal action. Betting on a court that, under these conditions, makes the statute of limitations fair is very risky. The right to just estoppel requires proof that the defendant or his insurer made specific commitments, threats or inducements to prevent the plaintiff from taking legal action, these acts effectively led the applicant to evade the filing of a complaint, the acts reasonably led the applicant to bring a suit in a timely manner , and the applicant brought the action within a reasonable period of time after the end of the conduct.
which justified the estoppel.