§657-20 Extension by fraudulent concealment. If any person who is liable to any of the actions mentioned in this part or section 663-3, fraudulently conceals the existence of the cause of action or the identity of any person who is liable for the claim from the knowledge of the person entitled to bring the action, the action may be commenced at any time within six years after the person who is entitled to bring the same discovers or should have discovered, the existence of the cause of action or the identity of the person who is liable for the claim, although the action would otherwise be barred by the period of limitations. [CC 1859, §1049; RL 1925, §2654; RL 1935, §3925; RL 1945, §10436; RL 1955, §241-19; HRS §657-20; am L 1972, c 105, §1(1)]
Possibility that plaintiffs can show "lulling" or fraudulent concealment is sufficient to avoid summary disposition on statute of limitations defense. 501 F. Supp. 830 (1980).
Applicability of statute of limitations to state securities fraud claims discussed. 758 F. Supp. 1357 (1991).
Where plaintiffs claimed that fraudulent concealment tolled the statute of limitations applicable to their contract claims: (1) material questions of fact existed regarding the breach of the first alleged agreement; and (2) the count alleging breach of contract under the second alleged agreement was barred by the statute of limitations; plaintiffs had constructive knowledge of their cause of action arising out of the second alleged agreement no later than 1996 and the doctrine of constructive notice applied despite any fiduciary relationship that may have existed. 360 F. Supp. 2d 1122 (2005).
Doctrine of fraudulent concealment was inapplicable, where plaintiffs had not brought forth evidence sufficient to support a finding that defendant's employees took affirmative steps to conceal anything. 396 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (2005).
This section is limited to causes of action mentioned in part I of chapter 657 or §663-3, and therefore does not apply to plaintiff's claim brought pursuant to chapter 480. 777 F. Supp. 2d 1224 (2011).
Plaintiff did not set forth any facts to support a plausible allegation of fraudulent concealment, where plaintiff did not point to conduct by either defendant to conceal anything, including the existence of plaintiff's current causes of action, and failed to allege any acts by defendants to prevent plaintiff from suing in time. Also, the alleged facts that plaintiff contended were concealed were evident on the face of the recorded trustee deed. 992 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (2014).
Construed in connection with contention that nondisclosure amounts to concealment. 44 H. 297, 353 P.2d 820 (1960).
Nature of fraudulent concealment. 63 H. 210, 626 P.2d 173 (1981).
Discussed: 792 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (2011).