When Does a Complaint “Relate Back” in an Auto Accident Case?
In this personal injury action arising out of an automobile collision, the plaintiff appealed from the grant of summary judgment to defendant Domino’s Pizza. The plaintiff contended that the trial court erred when it ruled that his claims against Domino’s were time-barred because they didn’t “relate back” to the date on which he filed his initial complaint against the driver of the vehicle involved in the collision, a Domino’s Pizza employee.
Background
On July 3, 2016, a car being driven by the defendant collided with plaintiff’s motorcycle. At the time, the auto driver was working as a delivery driver for JMP Pizza, which operated a Domino’s pizza store. A police officer issued the Domino’s driver a citation for failing to yield the right-of-way for her role in the collision. She didn’t contest the charge and paid the fine. The parties agreed that the two-year statute of limitations for the plaintiff’s ensuing personal-injury claims expired on August 22, 2018.
In October 2017, the plaintiff signed a limited liability release with the Domino’s driver and Geico—the Domino’s driver’s personal motor vehicle insurance — for $30,000, the policy limits. The release stated that it didn’t apply to the Domino’s driver “to the extent other insurance coverage is available” for the July 2016 collision. The plaintiff filed his initial complaint on July 2, 2018, asserting a claim against the Domino’s driver — the only named defendant — for negligence arising out of the collision. He sought damages for past medical expenses exceeding $335,000, future medical expenses, pain and suffering, and lost income.
On October 14, 2020, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint to add Domino’s Pizza as a defendant and allow his amended complaint to relate back to his initial complaint under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-15(c). He asserted that a liability insurance policy issued by Hanover Insurance — which he previously (but mistakenly) believed covered the defendant driver — in fact covered only Domino’s. The trial court granted the motion in June 2023. (The reason for the nearly three-year delay in addressing this motion isn’t apparent.) As a result, the plaintiff immediately filed an amended complaint adding Domino’s. In his operative complaint, the plaintiff claimed that Domino’s was vicariously liable for its driver’s negligence as her employer.
In December 2024, Domino’s moved to dismiss the complaint, or alternatively, for summary judgment, arguing that the two-year statute of limitation barred the action. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment, concluding that, under § 9-11-15(c), a plaintiff may not add a new defendant outside of the limitation period absent evidence that he previously sued the “wrong party” within the limitation period, which, the court ruled, wasn’t what happened here. This appeal followed.
Court of Appeals Reverses
Senior Judge C. Andrew Fuller wrote that the issue here was whether the plaintiff’s claims against Domino’s related back to his initial complaint under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-15(c). Because a trial court’s discretion “must be exercised in conformity with the governing legal principles,” it abuses that discretion if it denies such a motion when a plaintiff satisfies the statutory requirements. Judge Fuller examined whether the claims asserted by the plaintiff against Domino’s for the first time in his June 2023 amended complaint relate back to July 2018, when he filed his initial complaint against the Domino’s driver only, is governed by the “relation back” statute. That statute, O.C.G.A. § 9-11-15(c), provides:
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 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.
Thus, under this statute, a plaintiff may substitute one defendant for another after the statute of limitation has expired if three conditions are met:
- The claim arises out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth in the original pleading;
- Before the statute of limitation expired, the new defendant received such notice of the institution of the action that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining his defense on the merits; and
- Before the limitation period expired, the new defendant 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.
Judge Fuller explained that O.C.G.A. § 9-11-15(c) should be liberally construed to effect its purpose of boosting the impact of the statute of limitation. This appeal concerns only whether the third prong of the statutory test was met, as Domino’s didn’t challenge the trial court’s ruling that the first two prongs were satisfied.
The judge wrote that because O.C.G.A. § 9-11-15(c)’s text “focuses clearly on the proposed defendant’s knowledge,” the proper question in determining whether the third prong of the relation-back test is met “is not whether the plaintiff knew or should have known the identity of the proper defendant, but whether the proper defendant knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against him but for the plaintiff’s mistake.” As a result, “information in the plaintiff’s possession is relevant only if it bears on the defendant’s understanding of whether the plaintiff made a mistake regarding the proper party’s identity.
In that vein, knowing a party exists doesn’t preclude a plaintiff from making a mistake as to that party’s identity. Accordingly, to determine whether a claim against a new defendant relates back, a court must ask whether the new defendant knew or should have known that the plaintiff would have sued it but for the plaintiff’s “mistake concerning the identity of the proper party.” The proposed new defendant has the initial burden to show that O.C.G.A. § 9-11-15(c) is inapplicable. Then, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that O.C.G.A. § 9-11-15(c) is applicable.
For the statute to apply, a plaintiff must have made a mistake as opposed to a deliberate choice to sue one party over another with full knowledge of the factual and legal differences between the two. So, when the original complaint and the plaintiff’s conduct compel the conclusion that the failure to name the prospective defendant in the original complaint was the result of a fully informed decision and not a mistake concerning the proper defendant’s identity, the requirements of the relation-back statute aren’t met.
However, Judge Fuller explained that it doesn’t follow that a proper defendant could reasonably believe that the plaintiff made no mistake whenever the plaintiff “is aware of the existence of two parties” and chooses to sue one but not the other, as the reasonableness of the mistake isn’t itself at issue. Here, in September 2016, the plaintiff’s then-attorney sent JMP Pizza’s insurer a letter notifying it of his representation of the plaintiff in connection with the July 2016 collision, identifying its insured as Domino’s/its driver, and requesting certain information on “the liability insurance policy issued by Hanover to its insured. Thus, there was no question that, at that time:
- the plaintiff’s counsel was aware that the defendant driver was working for JMP Pizza when the collision occurred and that the Hanover policy was at issue; and
- Hanover was on notice that the plaintiff’s counsel had made that connection.
The following day, a Hanover adjuster sent the plaintiff’s attorney a letter identifying its insured as “JMP PIZZA INC, DBA DOMINO’S PIZZA” and requesting certain information regarding the plaintiff’s Medicare coverage. Two months later, another Hanover adjuster sent the attorney a letter stating the claim had been assigned to him and requesting copies of all “applicable medical records and medical bills and lost wage documentation (if applicable).” The same adjuster later sent the attorney multiple follow-up letters, asking if the plaintiff was “still treating for the injuries he suffered” in the collision and requesting all applicable medical records and bills and lost wage information.
Moreover, the Domino’s driver informed a manager and assistant manager that she’d been sued the day after she was served with the initial complaint in July 2018. And less than a month later, she also showed the complaint to a supervisor at the request of JMP Pizza’s owner, who told her at that time that he “couldn’t figure out why they weren’t mentioned in there.” On July 3, 2018, the day after the plaintiff sued the Domino’s driver, her attorney sent the adjuster an offer to settle the claims against its “insured” — which the offer identified as the Domino’s driver — for the policy limits of $2.5 million. On July 31, 2020, Hanover’s counsel sent the plaintiff’s attorney a letter informing him that, while it provided liability insurance coverage to Domino’s, it provided no such coverage to the driver individually.
Judge Fuller and the appellate panel found that the evidence supported the proposition that he mistakenly thought that the defendant driver was the only party he needed to sue because he mistakenly believed that she was covered by the Hanover policy. And so viewed, the record evidence further showed that, within a month of when the Domino’s driver was served on July 2, 2018 — before the statute of limitation expired on August 22, 2018 — Domino’s owner was aware of both the lawsuit and the plaintiff’s mistake in not naming it as a defendant. Moreover, a Domino’s corporate representative testified in a deposition that:
- Hanover was keeping Domino’s “up to date” on the status of claims from the July 2016 collision;
- Hanover had repeatedly explained to the plaintiff’s counsel that it covered Domino’s, but not the defendant driver; and
- during this time, Hanover regularly asked whether Domino’s had “heard anything” from the plaintiff, “received any letters” about any such claims, or “been served.”
In addition, Domino’s also knew that the delivery driver had received a citation as a result of the collision and paid the ensuing fine. As a result, viewed favorably to the plaintiff, Domino’s “knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of” the party covered by the Hanover policy, it would have been sued within the statute of limitation.
Similarly, the record didn’t suggest that the plaintiff’s failure to name Domino’s in his initial complaint resulted from a “fully informed decision as opposed to a mistake concerning the proper defendant’s identity.” Domino’s couldn’t reasonably believe the plaintiff’s failure to initially name it as a defendant was strategic rather than simply a mistake.
Again, whether that mistake was reasonable has no bearing on the application of the relation-back statute, which focuses on the defendant’s (actual or constructive) knowledge of such mistake, not its reasonableness. The Court of Appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment to Domino’s and remanded the case to the trial court. Cameron v. JMP Pizza, Inc., 2026 Ga. App. LEXIS 137, 2026 LX 137340 (Ga. App. March 5, 2026).
Contact Us
You need an experienced legal team to help you if you’re involved in a serious auto or motorcycle accident. At Tobin Injury Law, we’ve earned a reputation for compassionate counsel and aggressive representation. Our Atlanta auto injury lawyers helped countless Georgians recover after serious auto crashes. Our legal team is available 24/7, and we offer free consultations to answer your questions and review your case. If you’ve been injured in an auto accident in Atlanta or anywhere in Georgia, don’t wait. Call us today at (404) 587-8423 or contact us online to get the legal help you deserve.