SUPERIOR COURT

OF THE

STATE OF DELAWARE

WILLIAM C. CARPENTER, JR. NEW CASTLE COUNTY COURTHOUSE

 JUDGE 500 NORTH KING STREET, SUITE 10400

WILMINGTON, DE 19801-3733

TELEPHONE (302) 255-0670

January 19, 2016

Lawrance S. Kimmel, Esquire

Kimmel, Carter, Roman, Peltz & O’Neill, P.A.

56 W. Main Street

Plaza 273, 4th Floor

Newark, DE 19702

Susan L. Hauske, Esquire

Tybout, Redfearn, & Pell

750 Shipyard Drive, Suite 400

P.O. Box 2092

Wilmington, DE 19899

Andrew J. Connolly, Esquire

Post & Schell, P.C.

Four Penn Center 

1600 John F. Kennedy Blvd. 

Philadelphia, PA 19103

RE: Kristen A. Boyd and Bobby Boyd v. George Curtiss Fleetwood and

Mumford and Miller 

C.A. No. N14C-07-031 WCC 

On Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Complaint

GRANTED

Dear Counsel:

The Court has before it Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Complaint pursuant

to Superior Court Civil Rule 15(a), which was filed on September 23, 2015. A

hearing was held on October 7, 2015 and the Court reserved decision on the
1

 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 15(a). 

2

See Gerber v. Young, 1987 WL 9671, at *2 (Del. Super. Apr. 6, 1987). See also Paul v.

Chromalytics Corp., 343 A.2d 622, 625 (Del. Super. 1975).

3 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 15(c). See also Gerber, 1987 WL 9671, at *1 (“If the original pleading gives

fair notice of the general fact situation out of which the claim or defense arises, an amendment

which merely makes more specific what has already been alleged generally, or which changes the

legal theory of the action, will relate back even though the statute of limitations has run in the

interim.”). 

Motion pending a letter from counsel regarding the parties’ mediation efforts. At

the request of both parties, the Court agreed to hold its ruling on the instant

Motion in abeyance until after mediation was completed. Having since been

advised that the mediation was unsuccessful, the Court reviewed the Motion and

Defendants’ Response in Opposition. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’

Motion to Amend the Complaint is GRANTED.

In this case, Plaintiff Kristen A. Boyd (“Mrs. Boyd”) sustained personal

injuries in a motor vehicle accident on September 6, 2012 involving a vehicle

operated by Defendant George Curtiss Fleetwood in the course of his employment

with Defendant Mumford and Miller. Plaintiffs filed the initial Complaint on

July 5, 2014, in which Mrs. Boyd alleged her injuries were caused as a result of

Defendants’ negligence. Based on information recently obtained in discovery,

Plaintiffs are now seeking to amend the Complaint to include allegations of

reckless and wanton conduct and request punitive damages. 

A party may amend its pleading after a response has been filed pursuant to

Rule 15(a) either “by leave of court or written consent of the adverse party; and

leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.”1 The rule thus liberally

permits amendments to pleadings “unless the opposing party would be seriously

prejudiced thereby.”2 Further, where the statute of limitations for a proposed

claim has expired, the claim will nevertheless relate back to the date of the original

filing so long as it “arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or

attempted to be set forth in the original pleading.”3

It is clear to the Court, and appears undisputed among the parties, that the

amendments now proposed relate back to the same motor vehicle accident

underlying the original Complaint for purposes of Rule 15. Importantly,

Defendants do not argue the amendments are proposed out of bad faith, undue

delay, or inexcusable carelessness, nor have they demonstrated any serious

prejudice to their case. Rather, they urge the Court to deny the Motion because
4

 Defs. Resp. to Pl. Mot. to Amend Compl. at 6, ¶ 16.

Defendants’ “actions do not rise to the legal standard of wanton or reckless”

required for punitive damages.4 While perhaps a relevant consideration for the

jury or on a motion under Superior Court Civil Rule 50, this assertion has simply

no bearing on the Court’s determination under Rule 15(a). Thus, given the nature

of the proposed claims and Delaware’s policy to freely permit amendments absent

a showing of serious prejudice, the Court hereby grants Plaintiffs’ Motion to

Amend the Complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ William C. Carpenter, Jr. 

Judge William C. Carpenter, Jr.

WCCjr:twp

cc: Cailah Kerchevall, Civil Case Manager