|
A recent case dealt
with an attempted amendment to add personal injury damages after the initial
suit only requested property damages.
The case was State
Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Robert Blondin, No.
M2014-01756-COA-R3-CV, 2016 WL 1019609 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). This case was about a July 7, 2009 automobile
accident that occurred where an individual sustained personal injury and
property damages. State Farm Insurance
filed a Civil Warrant on May 17, 2010 to recover amounts paid to their own insured
under the uninsured motorist provision of their policy. State Farm sued the allegedly at fault driver
for property damage only as outlined in their initial Civil Warrant. On July 15, 2010, after the 1 year statute of
limitations for personal injury, State Farm filed a motion to amend the Civil
Warrant to assert personal injury damages as well. The General Sessions Court denied the motion
due to the fact the statute of limitations had expired. State Farm then appealed to the Circuit Court
where this request was also denied and then the case was set for trial. State Farm next voluntarily dismissed the
case without prejudice prior to trial.
After the dismissal
without prejudice, State Farm refiled the action in General Sessions Court on
January 31, 2012. This time, State Farm’s
Civil Warrant was for personal injury and property damages. Ultimately, the Circuit Court, on appeal from
General Sessions Court, went forward with the trial and allowed the case to be
tried seeking both personal injury and property damages. The Court awarded personal injury and
property damages at the trial. This case
was then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals over the statute of
limitations issue.
The Tennessee Court of
Appeals reversed the decision of the trial Circuit Court. The Court found that “the statute of
limitations operated to deprive the General Sessions Court of subject matter
jurisdiction to hear the claim for personal injuries”. State
Farm at p. 3. Further, the appeals
and voluntary dismissal by State Farm did not operate to revive or extend the statute
of limitations because the statute of limitations was already extinguished. State
Farm at p. 3. The Court also
discussed State Farm’s argument that the saving statute under T.C.A.
§ 28-1-105 somehow permitted State Farm to re-file the previous action and
rely upon the prior filing of the lawsuit to extend statute of limitation. The Court noted that the saving statute did
permit State Farm to re-file the cause of action but it did not resurrect the
previously barred cause of action for personal injury.
As a result, this case
shows how important it is that when a lawsuit is initially filed in General
Sessions Court, all applicable causes of action should be brought at that
time. If the statute of limitations for a
cause of action passed, when you are in General Sessions Court, you may not be
able to amend to add new cause of action outside of the statute of
limitations. Interestingly, the
plaintiff, State Farm, tried to rely upon Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure
15.01 and 15.03 which could save a plaintiff if the case was originally filed in
Circuit or Chancery Court. These rules
provide as follows:
15.01: A party may amend the
party's pleadings once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive
pleading is served or, if the pleading is one to which no responsive pleading
is permitted and the action has not been set for trial, the party may so amend it
at any time within fifteen (15) days after it is served. Otherwise a party may
amend the party's pleadings only by written consent of the adverse party or by
leave of court; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. For
amendments adding defendants pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §20-1-119, however,
written consent of the adverse party or leave of court is not required. A party
shall plead in response to an amended pleading within the time remaining for
response to the original pleading or within fifteen (15) days after service of
the amended pleading, whichever period may be longer, unless the court
otherwise orders.
15.03: Whenever the claim or
defense asserted in the amended pleadings arose out of the conduct, transaction
or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading,
the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading. An amendment
changing the party or the naming of the party by or against whom a claim is
asserted relates back if the foregoing provision is satisfied and if, within
the period provided by law for commencing an action or within 120 days after
commencement of the action, the party to be brought in by amendment (1) has
received such notice of the institution of the action that the party will not
be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits, and (2) knew or should
have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party,
the action would have been brought against the party.
However, due to the
fact this case was originally filed in General Sessions court, these rules do
not apply. The fact it was appealed to
the Circuit Court did not somehow retroactively apply these rules of civil
procedure to allow the plaintiff to save their previously time barred cause of
action.
Follow me on Twitter at @jasonalee for updates from the Tennessee Defense Litigation blog.
|