When Can An Auto Accident Victim Amended Their Complaint to Add a Defendant under the Relation Back Rule?
The Georgia Court of Appeals recently granted the application for interlocutory appeal filed by the defendant to review the denial of his motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action brought by the plaintiff.
The decision discusses the relation-back requirements in O.C.G.A. § 9-11-15. Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arises 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 against whom a claim is asserted relates back to the date of the original pleadings if the certain provisions are satisfied.
The question in this case was whether all three requirements were met.
Background
The plaintiff was involved in a multi-vehicle collision on February 2, 2018. One of the other vehicles involved in the collision was owned a man who said he wasn’t involved in the accident. He pointed to the accident report that showed his vehicle was actually being driven by the defendant. The auto owner moved for summary judgment, and the plaintiff moved the trial court for leave to amend his complaint to add the defendant, which was granted.
The defendant answered and moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, for a summary judgment, asserting in both filings that the plaintiff’s claims against him were barred by statutes of limitation. In an affidavit that accompanied his filings, he admitted operating the vehicle at the time of the collision. He explained that he’d been in a relationship with the auto owner’s daughter. According to the defendant’s affidavit, his relationship ended shortly after the accident, and since the date of the accident, he graduated from college and moved residences twice. The defendant stated that, other than receiving an October 2018 letter from the auto owner’s insurance company telling him that a claim had been made and that an investigation was underway, he had no knowledge of the plaintiff’s subsequent personal injury action until he was contacted by an attorney in December 2021. Finally, the defendant’s affidavit acknowledged the existence of a November 2019 letter to the auto owner from his insurer that informed him of the plaintiff’s lawsuit. That letter apparently stated that a copy was sent to the defendant; however, he denied ever receiving the letter, explaining that he never communicated his changes of address to the auto owner’s insurer.
The defendant argued in support of his motion that the relevant statute of limitation expired in February 2020 — nearly eight months before the plaintiff moved to amend his complaint — and that he couldn’t show that the claims against the defendant related back to date of the filing of the original complaint. Specifically, the defendant asserted that there was simply no evidence that he had notice of the plaintiff’s action before the expiration of the statute of limitations. The plaintiff disagreed and said that the November 2019 letter was enough to establish that he had notice of the lawsuit and, consequently, that his claim against the defendant related back to the date of the filing of the original complaint. After a hearing, the trial court denied the defendant’ motion. While the trial court recognized that the record “does not include any evidence reflecting that prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations … [the defendant] had actual knowledge of [the plaintiff] having filed the original complaint,” the trial court reasoned that the October 2018 letter “provide[d] [the defendant] with sufficient notice of [the plaintiff’s] litigation” and that “the defendant should have known that but for a mistake in identifying him as the proper party, [the plaintiff’s] original action would have been brought against him.” After the trial court’s ruling, the defendant appealed that order.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals
The defendant asserted that the trial court after concluding that the October 2018 letter was sufficient notice of the plaintiff’s suit to allow the amended complaint to relate back to the date of the filing of the original complaint.
Judge John A. Pipkin III wrote in his opinion for a panel of the Georgia Court of Appeals that there was no dispute that the statute of limitations on the plaintiff’s personal injury claims expired in February 2020. While the plaintiff’s original complaint was filed before this date, the defendant wasn’t added as a defendant until much later. Georgia law provides that where a new party defendant is added by amendment to a pending complaint after the expiration of the statute of limitation, the claim against the added defendant is barred by the expired limitation period unless all the provisions in O.C.G.A. § 9-11-15(c) are satisfied for relation back of the added defendant to the date of the original complaint. That statute provides, in relevant part:
An amendment changing the party against whom a claim is asserted relates back to the date of the original pleadings if the foregoing provisions are satisfied, and if within the period provided by law for commencing the action against him the party to be brought in by amendment (1) has received such notice of the institution of the action that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining his 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 him.
Georgia law states that three conditions must be met before a court can authorize the addition of a new party defendant and the relation back of claims as to that new defendant:
- The amendment adding the new defendant arose out of the same facts as the original complaint;
- The new defendant had sufficient, timely notice of the action; and
- Within the statute of limitation, the new defendant should have known that but for a mistake concerning his identity as a proper party, the action would have been brought against him.
The judge explained that the proposed new defendant has the initial burden to show that O.C.G.A. § -11-15(c) is inapplicable, after which the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that O.C.G.A. § 9-11-15(c) is applicable. There’s a strict adherence to the letter of O.C.G.A. § 9-11-15(c), the judge noted, by the one who would rely upon it as authority for the addition of a new party to an existing action.
At issue here are the second and third requirements, but the Court needed only consider the second requirement, namely, whether the defendant had “notice” of the lawsuit before the expiration of the relevant statute of limitation. Here, the trial court expressly determined that there was no evidence that the defendant had “actual knowledge” of the plaintiff’s personal injury action, and the record supported such a conclusion. Despite this determination, the trial court nevertheless concluded that the October 2018 letter was “sufficient notice of [the plaintiff’s] litigation.” This conclusion, however, was both factually and legally erroneous, Judge Pipkin said.
As a factual matter, the October 2018 letter couldn’t have provided notice of the litigation because that correspondence plainly pre-dated the August 2019 filing of the plaintiff’s action. Legally speaking, the October 2018 letter merely appraised the defendant that a claim had been made to the auto owner’s insurer and that the accident was being investigated; this mere notice of investigation was insufficient to satisfy the statute.
In short, given the lack of evidence that the defendant had knowledge of the plaintiff’s lawsuit before the limitation period expired, the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the plaintiff to amend his complaint to add the defendant as a party-defendant and in denying the plaintiff’s motion. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court was reversed. Watts v. Joseph, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 54 (Ga. App. February 14, 2025).
Contact Us
The application of the relation-back doctrine depends on whether the proper defendant knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against him but for the plaintiff’s mistake, not on what the plaintiff knew or should have known and not on whether the plaintiff’s mistake was legal or factual.
These intricate legal doctrines require an experienced attorney who has handled cases in state court. Contact an Atlanta accident attorney Atlanta residents trust 24 hours a day, seven days a week by calling 404-JUSTICE (404-587-8423) or using our online contact form. Our team offers free consultations, and we’ll be happy to answer your questions.