With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". See id. at 683-84. ¶12 The Huffs’ argument that they did not suffer damages until the statute of limitations defense was raised misses the point that their negligence claim accrued upon damage or injury. Thus, their citation to Gazija v. Nicholas Jerns Co., 86 Wn.2d 215, 543 P.2d 338 (1975) (injury and damages do not always occur simultaneously) is inapt. In Gazija, the court found the injury occurred when the insurance company failed to correctly apply premium payments, but the damages were not realized until the insurance company refused to indemnify the insured after his boat sank. Id. at 223; see also Streif 4 (2003) (declining to extend the statute of limitations where plaintiffs had notice of sufficient informatio Ill. App. 3d 349, 356, 703 N.E.2d 473, 234 Ill. Dec. 612 (1998) (<HOLDING>); Welborn v. Shipman, 608 So. 2d 334, 336 (Ala.

A: holding illinois courts have frequently recognized  a cause of action for legal malpractice will rarely accrue prior to the entry of an adverse judgment settlement or dismissal of the underlying action in which plaintiff has become entangled due to the purportedly negligent advice of his attorney
B: recognizing the cause of action
C: holding that cause of action for malpractice had accrued before underlying actions dismissal
D: holding that a plaintiff does not have to possess actual knowledge of all the relevant facts in order for the cause of action to accrue
A.