|
|
|
Posted on Apr 17 2016 3:49PM by Attorney, Jason A. Lee
|
|
A recent case dealt
with an attempted amendment to add personal injury damages after the initial
suit only requested property damages.
The case was State
Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Robert Blondin, No.
M2014-01756-COA-R3-CV, 2016 WL 1019609 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). This case was about a July 7, 2009 automobile
accident that occurred where an individual sustained personal injury and
property damages. State Farm Insurance
filed a Civil Warrant on May 17, 2010 to recover amounts paid to their own insured
under the uninsured motorist provision of their policy. State Farm sued the allegedly at fault driver
for property damage only as outlined in their initial Civil Warrant. On July 15, 2010, after the 1 year statute of
limitations for personal injury, State Farm filed a motion to amend the Civil
Warrant to assert personal injury damages as well. The General Sessions Court denied the motion
due to the fact the statute of limitations had expired. State Farm then appealed to the Circuit Court
where this request was also denied and then the case was set for trial. State Farm next voluntarily dismissed the
case without prejudice prior to trial.
After the dismissal
without prejudice, State Farm refiled the action in General Sessions Court on
January 31, 2012. This time, State Farm’s
Civil Warrant was for personal injury and property damages. Ultimately, the Circuit Court, on appeal from
General Sessions Court, went forward with the trial and allowed the case to be
tried seeking both personal injury and property damages. The Court awarded personal injury and
property damages at the trial. This case
was then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals over the statute of
limitations issue.
The Tennessee Court of
Appeals reversed the decision of the trial Circuit Court. The Court found that “the statute of
limitations operated to deprive the General Sessions Court of subject matter
jurisdiction to hear the claim for personal injuries”. State
Farm at p. 3. Further, the appeals
and voluntary dismissal by State Farm did not operate to revive or extend the statute
of limitations because the statute of limitations was already extinguished. State
Farm at p. 3. The Court also
discussed State Farm’s argument that the saving statute under T.C.A.
§ 28-1-105 somehow permitted State Farm to re-file the previous action and
rely upon the prior filing of the lawsuit to extend statute of limitation. The Court noted that the saving statute did
permit State Farm to re-file the cause of action but it did not resurrect the
previously barred cause of...
|
Continue
Reading 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|