When Does a Complaint “Relate Back” in a Car-Motorcycle Accident?
In a Georgia personal injury action arising out of an automobile–motorcycle collision, the plaintiff appealed from the grant of summary judgment to the defendant, a Domino’s Pizza location in Fairburn (Domino’s). The plaintiff argued that the trial court erred when it ruled that his claims against Domino’s were time-barred because they didn’t “relate back” to when he filed his initial complaint against the driver of the other vehicle involved in the collision (a pizza delivery driver—a Domino’s employee).
Dominos’ driver causes accident
The Domino’s delivery driver was issued a citation for failing to yield the right-of-way for her part in the collision. She didn’t contest the charge and paid the fine. The parties later 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 executed a limited liability release in favor of the delivery driver and her insurer in exchange for $30,000, the policy limits. By its terms, the release didn’t apply to the pizza delivery driver “to the extent other insurance coverage is available” concerning the collision. The plaintiff filed his initial complaint on July 2, 2018, asserting a claim against the delivery driver — the only named defendant — for negligence arising out of the collision. As relief, 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 the driver’s employer, Domino’s, as a defendant and allow an amended complaint to that effect 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) thought covered the delivery driver — in fact covered only Domino’s. The trial court granted the motion, and he filed an amended complaint adding Domino’s as a defendant. In his amended complaint, the plaintiff asserted that Domino’s was vicariously liable for the delivery driver’s negligence as her employer.
In December 2024, Domino’s moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, or alternatively, for summary judgment, arguing that the two-year statute of limitation barred the claims. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment, concluding that, under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-15(c), a plaintiff can’t 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.
The plaintiff challenged the trial court’s ruling that his claims against Domino’s didn’t relate back to his initial complaint against the delivery driver and therefore were time-barred. Among other things, he argued that Domino’s couldn’t show that he initially sued only the delivery driver “while fully understanding the factual and legal differences between the two defendants,” in particular, which party or parties was or were covered by available insurance policies.
Court of Appeals decides whether the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant related back to the initial complaint under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-15(c).
Senior Judge David O. Fuller, Jr. of the Georgia Court of Appeals wrote that at issue was whether the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant related back to his initial complaint under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-15(c). 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 delivery driver only, is governed by the “relation back” statute, O.C.G.A. § 9-11-15(c), which 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.
As such, 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.
This appeal concerned only whether the third prong of the statutory test was satisfied, as Domino’s didn’t challenge the trial court’s ruling that the first two prongs were satisfied.
Because O.C.G.A. § 9-11-15(c)’s text “focuses clearly on the proposed defendant’s knowledge,” Judge Fuller said that the proper question in determining whether the third prong of the relation-back test is met isn’t “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 such, the 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. As such, the judge said it would be error to conflate knowledge of a party’s existence with the absence of mistake. In that vein, Judge Fuller explained that 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 § 9-11-15(c) is inapplicable, following which the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the statute is applicable.
For the statute to apply, a plaintiff must have made a “mistake” rather than a deliberate choice to sue one party over another with full knowledge of the factual and legal differences between the two. Judge Fuller reasoned that it didn’t follow that a proper defendant could reasonably believe that the plaintiff didn’t make a mistake when he’s 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. As a result, a plaintiff’s “deliberate but mistaken choice” to sue a different defendant due to “a misunderstanding about his status or role in the events giving rise to the claim at issue” didn’t foreclose application of the relation-back statute, even when he knows that the prospective defendant exists.
Here, in September 2016, the plaintiff’s counsel sent Domino’s insurer a letter notifying it of his representation of the plaintiff in connection with the collision, identifying its insured as Domino’s and the delivery driver. He requested information on the insurance policy issued to its insured. Thus, there was no question that, at that time the plaintiff’s attorney was aware that the delivery driver was working for Domino’s when the crash happened and that Domino’s policy was at issue. In addition, Domino’s insurer was on notice that the plaintiff’s attorney had made that connection. The next day, an adjuster from Domino’s insurance company sent the plaintiff’s attorney a letter identifying its insured as “JMP PIZZA INC, DBA DOMINO’S PIZZA” and requesting certain information on the plaintiff’s Medicare coverage. Two months later, another adjuster sent the plaintiff’s attorney a letter stating that 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 plaintiff’s attorney multiple follow-up letters asking if the plaintiff was “still treating for the injuries he suffered” in the crash and requesting all applicable medical records and bills and lost wage information.
Moreover, the delivery driver told his managers 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 the Domino’s location’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 driver, his attorney sent the adjuster an offer to settle the plaintiff’s claims against its “insured” — which the offer identified as the delivery driver — for the Domino’s policy limits of $2.5 million. On July 31, 2020, the insurance company’s counsel sent the plaintiff’s attorney a letter informing him that, while it provided liability insurance coverage to the pizza location, it didn’t provide coverage to the pizza delivery driver individually.
The trial court determined that the plaintiff’s June 2023 amended complaint, in which he first named Domino’s as a defendant, didn’t relate back to his initial July 2018 complaint because he didn’t initially name the “wrong” defendant. In so ruling, the court concluded that: (i) the pizza delivery driver wasn’t a “wrong” defendant; and (ii) a defendant may be added under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-15(c) only where that defendant is a proper defendant replacing an improper defendant. However, Judge Fuller said that under Court of Appeals precedent, § 9-11-15(c) doesn’t impose such a requirement for an amended pleading adding a defendant to relate back to a prior pleading.
In his motion to add Domino’s as a defendant, the plaintiff asserted that he mistakenly named only the delivery driver in his initial complaint because he didn’t understand that Domino’s insurance policy covered only the company and not the driver individually. In fact, the record indicated that the plaintiff first learned that Domino’s policy wouldn’t provide coverage for the pizza delivery driver in 2020—well after the statute of limitations expired.
Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Judge Fuller and the panel found that the evidence supported the notion that the plaintiff mistakenly thought that the delivery driver was the only party he needed to sue because he mistakenly believed that she was covered by the Domino’s policy. As such, the evidence further showed that, within a month of when the driver was served on July 2, 2018 — before the statute of limitations expired on August 22, 2018— Domino’s 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:
- Its insurer was keeping the defendant “up to date” on the status of claims arising out of the July 2016 collision;
- Its insurer had repeatedly explained to the plaintiff’s counsel that it covered the defendant, but not the pizza delivery driver; and
- during this time, the insurance company regularly asked whether the defendant had “heard anything” from the plaintiff, “received any letters” about any such claims, or “been served.”
Plus, Domino’s also knew that the delivery driver be cited as a result of the collision and paid the fine.
As a consequence, the record showed that Domino’s “knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of” the party covered by the insurance policy, it would’ve been sued within the statute of limitations. 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.” In that regard, given the meager $30,000 limits of the pizza delivery driver’s policy and the plaintiff’s claimed damages of more than $335,000, Domino’s couldn’t reasonably have believed the plaintiff’s failure to initially name it as a defendant was strategic rather than simply a mistake. 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 the defendant. Cameron v. JMP Pizza, Inc., 2026 Ga. App. LEXIS 137 *; 2026 LX 137340 (Ga. App. March 5, 2026).
Our team
Contact an experienced Atlanta personal injury lawyer Atlanta residents trust every day. We’ve worked with car and motorcycle accident victims all across the country. We offer free consultations to all prospective clients. Contact an Atlanta personal injury attorney 24 hours a day, seven days a week by calling 404-JUSTICE (404-587-8423) or filling out our online contact form.