Court Denies Plaintiff Right to File Amended Complaint to Correct Name of the Defendant Driver After Plaintiff Waited Too Long To Do So

In the case of Myrick v. Hall, April Term 2020, No. 00794 (C.P. Phila. Co. Aug. 15, 2022 Shreeves-Johns, J.), the court affirmed the trial court’s Order granting a Motion to Dismiss and denying a Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to file an Amended Complaint to correct the name of the Defendant driver. in the Complaint.

In its decision, the court focused upon the fact that, although the Plaintiff knew that they had sued the wrong party in the Complaint’s caption, the Plaintiff did not seek to cure this defect until after the applicable statute of limitations had expired.

The court pointed to Supreme Court precedent holding that, where the statute of limitations has run, amendments will not be allowed to introduce a new cause of action or to bring in a new party.

The court emphasized that, based upon the Plaintiff’s own admission, the Plaintiff was aware that an adult male was driving the vehicle involved in the subject accident, but nevertheless chose to name a female as the Defendant driver in the Complaint. It turned out that the husband of the named Defendant driver was the actual driver during the course of the accident.

The court noted that the Plaintiff did not act with haste and took over six (6) months to attempt to cure the defects in their pleading after having become aware of the actual driver’s identity.

As such, in the Rule 1925 Opinion, the trial court asserted that it did not abuse its discretion by granting the named Defendant driver’s motion to dismiss and denying the Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend the Complaint to identify the correct driver.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source of Image:  Photo by Varvara Grabova on www.unsplash.com.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 22, 2022).

 

Effort To Amend Complaint To Join Defendant Driver After Expiration of Statute of Limitations Denied

In the case of Fick v. Barbon, 12 Berks 280 (C.P. Berks Co. Feb. 14, 2020), the court denied a Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint to name a new Defendant after the expiration of the statute of limitations. 

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff named the owner of the vehicle in the Complaint but not the driver of the vehicle involved in the subject accident.

The record before the court confirmed that personal information was exchanged by the parties at the scene of the accident. It was also noted that a police officer was present at the accident. The record therefore convinced the court that the Plaintiff knew or should have known the identity of the driver prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

In denying the Plaintiff’s motion for leave of court to join the driver to the matter, the court additionally took into consideration the potential prejudice to the Defendant driver in allowing him to be named to a lawsuit after the expiration of the statute of limitations where that driver was now enrolled in college and where the fact that the suit was filed only against the grandparent of the driver supported a reasonable expectation of the driver that he would not be sued. 

A copy of the trial court's decision could not be located online, but here is a LINK to a copy of the Non-precedential Opinion by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the same case.  The Superior Court's decision lays out the law in great detail.  Too bad they did not mark such a thorough Opinion as precedential.  But you can still cite to it anyway under the revised Rules.

Source: "Court Summaries” by Timothy L. Clawges of the Pennsylvania Bar News (Nov. 9, 2020).

A Suit Against a Dead Person Can Be Killed by the Statute of Limitations

In the case of Murphey v. Krajewski, No. 18-CV-1541 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Jan. 25, 2019 Nealon, J.), the court granted preliminary objections and dismissed a Complaint that had been filed against a deceased defendant.

According to the Opinion, this personal injury matter arose out of a motor vehicle accident.  Unbeknownst to the Plaintiff or his counsel, the defendant tortfeasor passed away a few months after the accident.  Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed suit against the deceased tortfeasor defendant, still not realizing that he had passed away.  The Complaint was filed four days prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

Judge Terrence R. Nealon
Lackawanna County

Judge Nealon confirmed the well-settled rule of law that a lawsuit filed against a deceased person is a legal nullity and the filing of such a lawsuit does not serve to toll the statute of limitations.  The court noted that the Plaintiff never opened an estate for the decedent or had a personal representative appointed on behalf of the decedent's estate prior to filing suit.

The court also noted that, once a statute of limitations expires, a personal representative of the estate cannot be substituted as a party defendant because the claim is time barred.  As such, the preliminary objections of the defendant were sustained and the Complaint was dismissed.

Anyone wishing to review this decision by Judge Nealon may click this LINK.

In the case of Vasquez v. Estate of Mosier, No. 766-CV-2018 (C.P. Monroe Co. Nov. 30, 2018 Williamson, J.), the court addressed the identical issue pertaining to how to handle pleadings when a party Defendant died before the litigation was commenced. 

More specifically, this matter arose out of a motor vehicle accident and involved claims of personal injury by the Plaintiff against a Defendant driver.  That Defendant driver later passed away after the accident but before suit was commenced.  A personal representative was appointed as the estate of the deceased Defendant.

Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed a Writ of Summons four (4) days before the statute of limitations expired on the claims presented against the deceased Defendant driver.  

The court’s Management Order issued after suit was filed directed the Plaintiff to sue the personal representative of the decedent’s estate.  

In response, the Plaintiff filed a Petition for Substitution of Successor.   The Defendants filed objections to the Plaintiff’s Petition asserting that the Writ of Summons should be stricken for failure to designate a proper and legal entity as the Defendant.  

Plaintiffs countered with an argument that the substitution of the estate of the decedent in the place of the decedent was proper because the Defendant would not suffer any prejudice as the Plaintiff had properly preserved the action by timely filing a Writ of Summons.   The Plaintiff also asserted that the personal representative could not claim prejudice because he was aware of the litigation prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations.  

In the alternative, the Plaintiff argued that, because the Writ was timely issued before the statute of limitations, the Plaintiff had until February, 2020 to reissue or serve it on any Defendants under 20 Pa. C.S.A. §3383.

Judge David J. Williamson
Monroe County

Judge Williamson disagreed with the Plaintiff’s analysis and noted that an attempt at a substitution of a successor was improper in this case because the suit was brought against a deceased person which was a nullity under the law.   Such a nullity could not be amended or cured by simply substituting parties.  

The court also found that the Plaintiff clearly knew of the decedent’s death because the Plaintiff had named the estate as a Co-Defendant.   The court found that the Plaintiff could have easily obtained information about the personal representative from the County Register of Wills office.  Judge Williamson noted that the Plaintiff’s failure to originally include the personal representative as a party Defendant meant that the Plaintiff had sued non-existent entities.  

Accordingly, Judge Williamson ruled that he was unable to grant the Petition to Substitute a Successor because the court was required to treat the Summons as if it had never existed given that it was a legal nullity.   It was additionally noted that the Plaintiff was unable to file a Praecipe for New Writ of Summons given that the statute of limitations had expired.  As such, the claim was dismissed. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. 

Source: “Digests of Recent Opinions.”  Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Jan. 22, 2019). 
 

Statute of Limitations Bars Claim Where Plaintiff Sued Wrong Defendant

In a recent non-precedential decision in the case of Adams v. Reese, No. 927 WDA 2016 (Pa. Super. March 7, 2017 Bowes, Olson, and Strassburger, J.J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the entry of summary judgment in favor of a Defendant in a motor vehicle accident matter in which the Plaintiff sued the wrong person as the alleged Defendant driver.  

According to the Opinion, this matter arose out of a motor vehicle accident during which the Defendant’s vehicle was driven by the Reeses’ son, Dane M. Reese.  However, when the Plaintiff’s filed a Complaint, they named as Defendants, David A. Reese (the father) and Karen C. Reese (the mother).   The Complaint stated that David (the father) was the driver and that both David and Karen were negligent in the operation/ownership of the vehicle.  

The Defendants filed an Answer and New Matter asserting that David was not the operator of the vehicle; rather it was the son, Dane, who was not named as a Defendant, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident.  

Thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1033.  In their motion, the Plaintiffs alleged that a “typographical error” had mistakenly listed the wrong first name of the driver of the vehicle.   The defense opposed this  motion, asserting that the Plaintiffs were prohibited from amending their Complaint to add a new party after the expiration of the statute of limitations.   This Motion to Amend filed by the Plaintiff was denied by the trial court.

Thereafter, the Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which was granted.   This entry of summary judgment was appealed in this non-precedential decision in the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

Citing to the prior precedential case of Saracina v. Cotoia, 208 A.2d 764, 766 (Pa. 1965), the Adams court noted that the Plaintiff listed a completely different person as a Defendant and, therefore, allowing the Complaint to be amended after the statute of limitations had run, would be permitting the Plaintiff to add a new and distinct party beyond the statute of limitations in contravention to Pennsylvania case law.  

The Superior Court stated that, although they were cognizant that the allegations set forth in the Complaint suggested that the Plaintiff did intend to sue the son, i.e., the operator of the vehicle, and not the father, the court in Adams, citing Saracina, 208 A.2d at 766, stated that the case law was clear that, under these very circumstances, an amendment is not permitted.

As such, the court in Adams affirmed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment on the basis of the statute of limitations defense.  

Anyone wishing to review this non-precedential decision by the Superior Court in Adams may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Paul Oven of the Moosic, Pennsylvania office of Dougherty, Leventhal & Price for bringing this case to my attention.