What is the “Relation Back Rule”?

In a personal injury action arising out of an automobile collision, the plaintiff appealed from the grant of summary judgment to the defendant, Domino’s Pizza. 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 the date on which he filed his initial complaint against the driver of the other vehicle involved in the collision, a Domino’s employee.

Under O.C.G.A. § 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

A police officer issued the Domino’s employee 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 on August 22, 2016. Consequently, the parties agreed that the two-year statute of limitation 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 Domino’s employee and Geico Insurance Company — which provided the employee’s personal motor vehicle insurance — in exchange for $30,000 (the policy limits). By its terms, the release didn’t apply to the employee “to the extent other insurance coverage is available” as to the July 2016 collision. The plaintiff filed his initial complaint in this case on July 2, 2018, asserting a claim against the employee — 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 Domino’s as a defendant and allow an 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 — which he previously (but mistakenly) thought covered the Domino’s employee — in fact covered only Domino’s. The trial court granted the motion. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding Domino’s as a defendant later that day and served it the following day. In his complaint, the plaintiff asserted that Domino’s was vicariously liable for its employee’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 claims against it. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment, concluding that, under O.C.G.A. § 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.

The plaintiff challenged the trial court’s ruling that his claims against Domino’s didn’t relate back to his initial complaint against the employee and therefore were time-barred. The plaintiff argued that Domino’s couldn’t show that he initially sued only the Domino’s employee “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.

“Relation back” statute, O.C.G.A. § 9-11-15(c)

Senior Judge C. Andrew Fuller wrote that what was at issue was whether the plaintiff’s claims against Domino’s related back to his initial complaint under § 9-11-15(c). This question, the judge opined, was 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.

Thus, under this statute, a plaintiff may substitute one defendant for another after the statute of limitation has expired if three conditions are met:

1. The claim arises out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth in the original pleading”;
2. 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
3. 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.

The judge noted that the provisions of O.C.G.A. § 9-11-15(c) should be liberally construed to effect its purpose of softening the impact of the statute of limitation. This appeal concerned only whether the third prong of the statutory test has been met, as Domino’s didn’t challenge the trial court’s ruling that the first two prongs were satisfied. Because § 9-11-15(c)’s text focuses on the proposed defendant’s knowledge, the question in determining whether the third prong of the relation-back test is satisfied is 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, information in the plaintiff’s possession is relevant only if it bears on the defendant’s understanding of whether the plaintiff made a mistake as to 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. As such, the judge said that 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. In addition, the proposed new defendant has the initial burden to show that § 9-11-15(c) is inapplicable, after which the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the statute is applicable. Moreover, even where a plaintiff’s mistake isn’t a factual one about the “identity” of potential defendants, it may still constitute a mistake concerning which party was the “proper’ defendant” for purposes of O.C.G.A. § 9-11-15(c).

Nevertheless, 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. Therefore, 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 as opposed to a mistake concerning the proper defendant’s identity, the requirements of [the relation-back statute] are not met. However, it doesn’t follow that a proper defendant could reasonably believe that the plaintiff didn’t make a mistake whenever he or she’s aware of the existence of two parties and chooses to sue one but not the other. That’s because the reasonableness of the mistake isn’t itself at issue.

Here, in September 2016, the plaintiff’s then-counsel sent the pizza shop’s insurer (Hanover) a letter notifying it of his representation of the plaintiff in connection with the July 2016 collision, identifying Hanover’s insured as “Sarah Smith/the Domino’s employee,” and requesting information on the liability insurance policy. Thus, there was no question that, at that time the plaintiff’s then counsel was aware that the Domino’s employee was working for the pizza shop when the collision happened and that the Hanover policy was at issue, and that insurer was on notice that the plaintiff’s then counsel had made that connection.

The next day, a Hanover adjuster sent the plaintiff’s then counsel 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 plaintiff’s then counsel 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 attorney a number of follow-up letters between December 2016 and June 2018, 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 employee told 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 pizza shop’s request 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 employee, the plaintiff’s former attorney sent the Hanover adjuster an offer to settle his claims against its “insured” — which the offer identified as the Domino’s employee — for the Hanover policy limits of (according to the plaintiff’s then counsel) $2.5 million. On July 31, 2020, Hanover’s counsel sent the plaintiff’s former counsel a letter telling him that, while it provided liability insurance coverage to Domino’s, it didn’t provide coverage to the Domino’s employee 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 trial court concluded that the Domino’s employee wasn’t a “wrong” defendant, and a defendant may be added under § 9-11-15(c) only where that defendant is a proper defendant replacing an improper defendant. But under the Court’s precedent, the statute doesn’t imposes such a requirement for an amended pleading adding a defendant to relate back to a prior pleading. Judge Fuller explained that although O.C.G.A. § 9-11-15(c) refers to “an amendment changing the party,” the relation back provision has been construed to include cases where, as here, where the plaintiff adds rather than substitutes a new party defendant. And because O.C.G.A. § 9-11-15(c) allows adding a party, it follows that the statute applies where a plaintiff seeks to add a proper defendant to a lawsuit that already names another proper defendant, as is the case here.

In his motion to add Domino’s as a defendant, the plaintiff asserted that he mistakenly named only the Domino’s employee in his initial complaint because he didn’t understand that the Hanover insurance policy covered only Domino’s and not the employee individually. Indeed, the record indicated that he first learned that Hanover wouldn’t provide coverage for the employee in 2020, well after the statute of limitation expired.

Judge Fuller found that he evidence supported the notion that the plaintiff mistakenly thought that the Domino’s employee was the only party he needed to sue because he mistakenly believed that she was covered by the Hanover policy. Moreover, the record evidence further showed that, within a month of when the employee was served on July 2, 2018 — before the statute of limitation expired on August 22, 2018 — Domino’s ’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 arising out of the July 2016 collision;
• Hanover had repeatedly explained to the plaintiff’s counsel that it covered Domino’s , but not the Domino’s employee; 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 employee had received a citation as a result of the collision and paid the ensuing fine.

Thus, viewed favorably to the plaintiff, 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 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.” In that regard, given the meager $30,000 limits of the Domino’s employee’s Geico policy and the plaintiff’s claimed damages of more than $335,000, Domino’s couldn’t reasonably have thought that the plaintiff’s failure to initially name it as a defendant was strategic rather than simply mistaken. 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.

In sum, the Court of Appeals held that 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 doesn’t foreclose application of the relation-back statute, even when the plaintiff knows that the prospective defendant exists. The Court reversed the grant of summary judgment to the pizza shop. Cameron v. Domino’s , Inc., 2026 Ga. App. LEXIS 137, 2026 LX 137340 (Ga. App. March 5, 2026).

Contact Us

Having a good personal injury lawyer Atlanta residents trust who has extensive experience in handling auto accident cases every day truly does make a difference. Whomever you hire as your personal injury car accident lawyer must understand Georgia law and how to apply the state’s personal injury laws effectively.  Our experienced Atlanta based personal injury law firm is happy to answer your questions.  We offer free consultations to all prospective clients. Contact an Atlanta personal injury attorneys at Tobin Injury Law 24 hours a day, seven days a week by calling 404-JUSTICE (404-587-8423).