Title: Andrews v. Stam

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Andrews v. Stam  (2006-354)

2007 VT 79

[Filed 17-Aug-2007]

  NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
  40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. 
  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
  Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
  order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 2007 VT 79

                                No. 2006-354


  Anthony E. Andrews                                Supreme Court

                                                    On Appeal from
       v.                                           Addison Superior Court


  Kurt W. Stam                                      May Term, 2007


  Matthew I. Katz, J.

  James W. Swift and Devin McLaughlin of Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP,
  Middlebury, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

  Sheldon M. Katz of Clark, Long, Werner & Flynn, Burlington, for
  Defendant-Appellee.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ.

        
       ¶ 1.     BURGESS, J.   Plaintiff Anthony Andrews appeals a superior
  court order dismissing his claim of negligence against defendant Kurt Stam
  for personal injuries sustained when the parties were involved in a two-car
  accident in Vermont.  Defendant moved to dismiss, based on plaintiff's
  failure to file suit within the three-year statute of limitations generally
  applicable to such claims.  The superior court initially denied the motion,
  then later granted defendant's motion to reconsider and dismissed
  plaintiff's action.  On appeal, plaintiff argues that the applicable
  statute of limitations is tolled when the defendant resides out of state
  and the suit concerns a motor vehicle accident in which the defendant was
  involved.  We agree that the statute of limitations is tolled in this
  instance and reverse.

       ¶ 2.     Plaintiff's complaint alleges that on January 19, 2002, he
  was traveling on Killington Road in Rutland when the car he was operating
  collided with a car operated by defendant.  Defendant was and remains a
  resident of the State of New York and owns no real property in Vermont. 
  Plaintiff first filed suit against defendant in Rutland Superior Court on
  January 7, 2005, and attempted personal service in New York.  The effort at
  personal service was unsuccessful, and the suit was eventually dismissed. 
  Plaintiff, with new counsel, filed the present case on December 6, 2005,
  and effectuated service on December 8, 2005 by serving the Vermont
  Commissioner of Motor Vehicles pursuant to 12 V.S.A. § 892.  

       ¶ 3.     Defendant, in his motion to dismiss, maintained that
  plaintiff's second action was barred by the three-year statute of
  limitations in 12 V.S.A. § 512(4).(FN1)  Plaintiff does not dispute that
  more than three years passed between the time the cause of action accrued
  and the commencement of his suit.  Rather, plaintiff argues that the
  statute of limitations was tolled by 12 V.S.A. § 552, which provides:

       If a person is absent from and resides out of the state after
       a cause of action accrues against him and before the statute
       has run, and he has not known property within the state which
       can by common process of law be attached, the time of his
       absence shall not be taken as a part of the time limited for
       the commencement of the action.

  It is undisputed that defendant resided out of state for the entire period
  and had no property in Vermont.  However, application of § 552 tolling has
  been significantly limited by case law where we have held that the section
  is inoperative when a defendant is amenable to service of process pursuant
  to the long arm statute, 12 V.S.A. § 913.  Fortier v. Byrnes, 165 Vt. 189,
  192-93,