 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Larue v. Harris7/19/2005
In this personal injury action brought by Stephanie LaRue against the Estate of Corrine Harris, the Estate argues that LaRue's amended complaint does not relate back to her original complaint and thus that she did not commence the action in timely fashion. We affirm.
On June 20, 1997, LaRue and Harris were in an automobile accident. In March 1998, Harris died. In April 1998, the Estate was opened.
Farmers insured both LaRue and Harris. From 1998 through 2000, it negotiated with LaRue without telling her Harris had died. The case did not settle.
On June 19, 2000, LaRue filed a complaint for negligence. She named Harris, but not the Estate. While trying to serve Harris, LaRue discovered that Harris had died.
On August 15, 2000, LaRue filed an amended summons and complaint that named the Estate. On August 17, 2000, LaRue served the Estate's personal representative. Farmers later intervened.
On March 8, 2001, the Estate moved for summary judgment. It argued that the amended complaint did not relate back to June 19, 2000, and thus that the three-year statute of limitation barred recovery. The trial court orally granted the motion, but LaRue moved for reconsideration ten days later. On May 25, 2001, the trial court reversed itself and ruled that the amended complaint did relate back and that the suit had been timely commenced.
In January 2003, the parties arbitrated and LaRue won. The Estate filed for trial de novo, which took place in October 2003. The jury found for LaRue in the amount of $66,303.13, and the court awarded LaRue about $25,000 in reasonable attorney fees and costs. After the entry of judgment on the verdict, the Estate filed this appeal.
While the appeal was pending, the Estate paid the judgment in full. On January 30, 2004, the trial court entered an order saying the judgment had been satisfied, and LaRue withdrew the proceeds from the registry of the court.
I.
LaRue contends that the appeal is moot because the Estate has paid the judgment. A case is moot on appeal when the appellate court can no longer grant relief. We can grant relief here, for if we reverse, we can order the trial court to dismiss the suit and LaRue to make restitution. Accordingly, the appeal is not moot.
LaRue relies on RAP 2.5(b)(1), which provides:
A party may accept the benefits of a trial court decision without losing the right to obtain review of that decision only (i) if the decision is one which is subject to modification by the court making the decision or (ii) if the party gives security as provided in subsection (b)(2) or (iii) if, regardless of the result of the review based solely on the issues raised by the party accepting benefits, the party will be entitled to at least the benefits of the trial court decision . . .
Except in the situations indicated, this rule denies the right of appeal to a party who accepts benefits. It does not, however, deny the right of appeal to a party who complies with an outstanding judgment by paying benefits; that party may still pursue an appeal and, if successful, obtain restitution. Because the Estate paid benefits, RAP 2.5(b) does not affect its right to appeal.
II.
LaRue argues that 'the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that plaintiff's amended complaint related back to the originally filed complaint when the amendment did nothing more than change the capacity of the defendant.' The Estate argues to the contrary. LaRue relies on CR 15(c), which provides:
Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, tra
Page 1 2 3 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|