 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pargman v. Vickers8/31/2004
e requirements of Rule 15(c) and whether, on the facts before us, they were met for purposes of relation back. We hold they were.
We acknowledge that other courts have refused to allow relation back in circumstances similar to those presented here. See Parker v. Breckin, 620 A.2d 229 (Del. 1993); Gailor v. Alsabi, 990 S.W.2d 597 (Ky. 1999). The results reached in these cases reflect a strict and narrow application of the relation back doctrine. Such a construction is at odds with the remedial purpose of Rule 15(c) and the liberal construction we give to relation back in Arizona. See Ritchie, 165 Ariz. at 467, 799 P.2d at 808; Ellman, 180 Ariz. at 340, 884 P.2d at 226.
CONCLUSION
When, as here, a plaintiff files a complaint and mistakenly names a deceased defendant instead of the decedent's estate and, when, as here, the assets of the estate consist of liability insurance proceeds and the insurer had notice of the plaintiff's action and knowledge of the plaintiff's mistake within the period prescribed by Rule 15(c), an amended complaint naming the estate will relate back to the date of the original complaint provided there is no prejudice to the insurer and the estate and the other requirements of Rule 15(c) are satisfied.
The judgment dismissing Pargman's action is reversed. This matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge
CONCURRING:
LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Presiding Judge
JEFFERSON L. LANKFORD, Judge
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.
|
|