Co-accused should consider toll agreements if they wish for additional time to consider filing counter-claims against each other. Under the laws of some states, counter-claims must be filed while proceedings are pending, requiring defendants to decide, before trial, whether to assert counter-claims. In some cases, this decision could be imposed on a defendant before it is clear whether the applicant has a significant liability case. When counter-claims are invoked, the defendants may focus too much on the transfer of responsibility between them and involuntarily assist the plaintiff in determining liability or increasing the value of the case by developing facts that have been overlooked by the applicant. An appropriate toll applies to criminal and civil proceedings, including removal procedures under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).  A fair toll is a common principle of the law which states that a statute of limitations does not exclude a right if, despite due diligence, the applicant was not able or unable to determine the harm until after the statute of limitations had expired. In Michigan, the applicant must exercise the necessary diligence to invoke a fair toll. If the applicant has sufficient information for the appropriate defendant to be identified and served, the applicant cannot apply for the statute of limitations since he has not received the necessary information in a timely manner.  Tolls may be made under a statute that specifically provides for the statute in certain circumstances.
It may also take the form of a fair toll if the court applies the principles of the common law of fairness in order to extend the time it takes to file a document.  If the parties agree to enter into a toll agreement, the main provisions of the agreement regulate its scope, including the types of claims you could file against the co-accused. In product liability cases, you may be entitled to a contribution against co-defendants to ensure that your client does not pay more than his or her share of proportionate liability, which is assessed in joint and several liability jurisdictions. You may also have a tacit claim against a manufacturer if you are a downstream distributor or seller, or you are entitled to contractual compensation if your client has a defence and compensation contract. There may also be warranty requests. Clear language will avoid disputes over the scope of the agreement. See z.B., Camico`s courage. In the. Co.
v. Citizens Bank, 474 F.3d 989 (7th Cir. 2007). On the other hand, this “discovery phase” can be costly, frustrating and tedious in a trial. For example, a toll agreement may provide a potential complainant with the opportunity to save money and obtain more information from the defendant than he would normally offer. In exchange for the plaintiff delaying the filing of an appeal until the expiry of the toll agreement, the defendant agrees to waive the right to use that time to calculate the expiry period of the claim. With the statute of limitations suspended, the parties may have the necessary time to negotiate and resolve the dispute. The New Mexico Supreme Court has held that a fair toll generally applies in cases where a complainant has been prevented from prosecuting because of an exceptional event beyond his control.  On the other hand, where an applicant is not referred to a remedy because of his fault and he or she brings an action in a timely manner, a fair toll does not apply.  For example, if one of the remedies is pursued, the limitation of unsurred remedies is fair where the applicant can prove it: the Arizona courts have recognized and applied the just toll doctrine.
 For example, state courts have allowed a fair toll: some non-federal courts in the United States have different approaches to fair tolls, with some courts accepting a fair toll and others firmly restricting the practice or denying the statute of limitations without legal authority.