 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pargman v. Vickers8/31/2004
This appeal arises out of a personal injury case filed within the two-year statute of limitations by plaintiff-appellant Brenda Pargman against Betty Vickers. When Pargman sued Vickers, she did not know Vickers had died.
After expiration of the limitation period, Pargman filed an amended complaint naming Vickers' estate and sought to recover against the only assets of the estate, insurance proceeds available under a policy issued to Vickers by the real party in interest, Foundation Reserve Insurance Company. The trial court dismissed Pargman's amended complaint, finding it time barred. The trial court held the amended complaint could not "relate back" to the date of the original complaint, under Rule 15(c) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, because the estate was not in existence and could not have known about the action and Pargman's mistake before expiration of the time specified in that rule for such notice and knowledge.
The issue presented in this appeal is whether, under these circumstances, an amended complaint naming a decedent's estate may relate back to the date of the original complaint that, mistakenly, named only the decedent as the defendant.
We hold that when, as here, a plaintiff mistakenly sues a decedent and not the decedent's estate and seeks to recover only against insurance proceeds, if the decedent's insurer had notice of the action and knowledge of the plaintiff's mistake within the period specified by Rule 15(c), an amended complaint will relate back to the date of the original complaint absent any prejudice to the insurer and the estate, and assuming the other requirements of Rule 15(c) are met. Consequently, we reverse the trial court's judgment dismissing Pargman's case.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 18, 1997, Pargman and Vickers were involved in an automobile accident. At some point in 1997 -- the record does not reflect when -- Foundation, Vickers' automobile liability insurer, received notice of the accident. Three months after the accident, Vickers died from unrelated causes.
Unaware that Vickers had died, Pargman filed a personal injury lawsuit against her on March 5, 1999, before the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury under Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 12-542 (2003) expired. Pargman then had 120 days to serve Vickers with a summons and the complaint. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4(i).
By letter dated March 25, 1999, Pargman's attorney notified Foundation's adjuster of the lawsuit. The adjuster requested a copy of the summons and complaint. Pargman's lawyer sent the adjuster a copy of the complaint on April 28, 1999 and also advised the adjuster that he had been unable to locate Vickers and requested her current address. In response, the adjuster advised Pargman's attorney that it had no knowledge of Vickers' "whereabouts."
Foundation then retained an attorney to look into the matter for it. On June 2, 1999, Foundation's attorney informed Pargman's lawyer that he had received a copy of Foundation's file, along with a copy of Pargman's complaint, stated that he too did not know Vickers' "whereabouts," and asked for an opportunity to file a responsive pleading before Pargman defaulted Vickers. On June 11, 1999, Foundation's adjuster informed Pargman's attorney that although it had not had any contact with Vickers, it had learned, but not confirmed, "that perhaps she is deceased." Three days later, Foundation's attorney wrote Pargman's lawyer and stated that "if and when appropriate service of process is affected on the estate of Betty A. Vickers... we will respond accordingly."
At that point, Pargman reque
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|