|
Analysis: On March 7, 2014, the Tennessee Supreme Court
settled, once and for all, an important question about the comparative
fault doctrine in Tennessee. In sum,
the fact a tortfeasor is known to the plaintiff at the
time of the filing of the original complaint does not prevent them from
bringing them in as a party at a later date (after the statute of limitations
runs) when a defendant asserts comparative fault against them.
The case at issue involved a Rule 23 certified question of law from the
United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee to the Tennessee Supreme Court. In Michael S. Becker
v. Ford Motor Co., No. M2013-02546-SC-R23-CV, 2014 WL 901510 (Tenn. 2014) the Tennessee
Supreme Court made a clear ruling on an important comparative fault issue that
has been in some dispute since McIntyre v.
Ballentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992). In
the Becker case, the
plaintiff sued Ford Motor Company for products liability and breach of warranty
claims following an accident. The
plaintiff did not sue the driver of the vehicle in the original complaint (who
happened to be the plaintiff’s own son).
Ford answered the complaint and asserted comparative fault against the
driver of the vehicle (the plaintiff’s son).
The plaintiff then filed a motion to add the son as a party and Ford
opposed the motion on the grounds that the plaintiff could not use T.C.A. § 20-1-119 to bring in the
son as a party because the plaintiff knew the identity of their son as a
tortfeasor prior to filing the complaint.
As a result of this issue, the Federal
court certified the following issue of law to the Tennessee Supreme Court:
When a plaintiff
knows the identity of a potential tortfeasor at the time of the filing of
plaintiff's original complaint and prior to the running of the applicable
statute of limitations and the plaintiff chooses not to sue said known
potential tortfeasor, can the plaintiff then later rely on the 90–day savings
provision of Tenn. Code Ann. § 20–1–119
in order to add the previously known potential tortfeasor to the existing
lawsuit after the defendant alleges comparative fault against the known
potential tortfeasor notwithstanding the expiration of the statute of
limitations?
The Tennessee Supreme Court first addressed
several different federal decisions that misinterpreted or ignored Tennessee
law on comparative fault. Ultimately, the
Tennessee Supreme Court held that a plaintiff’s “ability to utilize Tenn. Code Ann. § 20–1–119 to amend its complaint to
assert a claim against a non-party against whom a defendant has asserted a
comparative fault claim or to file a separate new complaint against such a
non-party does not depend on whether the non-party was either known or unknown
to the plaintiff when its original complaint was filed.” Id.
at 6. The Court then provided
the formal response to the certified question of law from the Federal Court as
follows:
A plaintiff may
rely on the ninety-day savings provision in Tenn. Code Ann. § 20–1–119
in order to add a previously known potential non-party tortfeasor to an
existing lawsuit even when the plaintiff knew the identity of the potential
tortfeasor at the time of the filing of the plaintiff's original complaint but
chose not to sue the potential tortfeasor
This is an important
Tennessee Supreme Court decision that provides a definitive answer to this
question that has caused some divergent court decisions. Essentially, there is no longer any argument
that can be made against a plaintiff who adds a non-party outside the statute
of limitations under T.C.A.
§ 20-1-119 on the basis the plaintiff knew of the identity of the
tortfeasor but did not add them as a party.
Because it may be helpful to some to have all of the language of T.C.A.
§ 20-1-119, I will provide it here as follows:
(a) In civil
actions where comparative fault is or becomes an issue, if a defendant named in
an original complaint initiating a suit filed within the applicable statute of
limitations, or named in an amended complaint filed within the applicable
statute of limitations, alleges in an answer or amended answer to the original
or amended complaint that a person not a party to the suit caused or
contributed to the injury or damage for which the plaintiff seeks recovery, and
if the plaintiff's cause or causes of action against that person would be
barred by any applicable statute of limitations but for the operation of this
section, the plaintiff may, within ninety (90) days of the filing of the first
answer or first amended answer alleging that person's fault, either:
(1) Amend the
complaint to add the person as a defendant pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ.
P. 15 and cause process to be issued for that person; or
(2) Institute a
separate action against that person by filing a summons and complaint. If the
plaintiff elects to proceed under this section by filing a separate action, the
complaint so filed shall not be considered an original complaint initiating the
suit or an amended complaint for purposes of this subsection (a).
(b) A cause of
action brought within ninety (90) days pursuant to subsection (a) shall not be
barred by any statute of limitations. This section shall not extend any
applicable statute of repose, nor shall this section permit the plaintiff to
maintain an action against a person when such an action is barred by an
applicable statute of repose.
(c) This section
shall neither shorten nor lengthen the applicable statute of limitations for
any cause of action, other than as provided in subsection (a).
(d) Subsections
(a) and (b) shall not apply to any civil action commenced pursuant to § 28-1-105, except an action
originally commenced in general sessions court and subsequently recommenced in
circuit or chancery court.
(e) This section
shall not limit the right of any defendant to allege in an answer or amended answer
that a person not a party to the suit caused or contributed to the injury for
which the plaintiff seeks recovery.
(f) As used in
this section, “person” means any individual or legal entity.
(g)
Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, this section applies to suits
involving governmental entities.
Tennessee courts are
sure to decide more and more cases on this statute and on Comparative
Fault in Tennessee. This doctrine
has generated a significant amount of appellate case law because of the
complexity of the concept in so many situations.
Follow me on Twitter at @jasonalee for updates from the Tennessee Defense Litigation
blog.
|