SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
W ILLIAM C. CARPENTER, JR. NEW CASTLE COUNTY COURTHOUSE

JUDGE 500 NORT H KING S TREET , SUITE 10400 WILMINGTON, DE 19801-3733 TELEPHO NE (302) 255- 0670
January 19, 2016
Lawrance S. Kim

mel, Esquire Kimmel, Carter, Roman, Peltz & O’Neill, P.A. 56 W. Main Street Plaza 273 , 4th Floor Newar k, DE 1 9702 Susan L. Hauske, Esquire Tybou t, Redfe arn, & P ell 750 Shipy ard Dri ve, Suite 400 P.O. Box 2092 Wilm ington, DE

19899 Andrew J. Connolly, Esquire Post & Schell, P.C. Four Penn Center 1600 Jo hn F. Kennedy Blv d. Philadelph

ia, PA 19103
RE: Kristen A . Boy d and Bobby Boyd v. George C urtiss Fle etwood and Mumford and Miller C.A. No. N14C-07-031 WCC
On Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Complaint

GRANTED
Dear C ounsel:
The Cour t has befor

e it Plain tiffs’ Motion to Amend t

he Com plaint pursu ant to Superio r Court Civ il Rule 15 (a), which was fil ed on Septe mber 23, 2015. A hearing w as held on O ctober 7, 2015 and the C ourt rese rved deci sion on the1 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 (“I f the original pleading give s fair notice of the genera

l fact situation out of which the claim or defense arises, an a mendment which merely ma

kes more specific what has already been alleged gene

rally, or which c

hanges the legal theory

of the action, will relate back even though the statute of limitations has run in the interim.”). Motion p ending a l etter from couns el regardin g the parti es’ mediation effo rts. At the reque st of both pa

rties, t he Court agreed to hol d its ruling o n the instant Motion in abeyance until after me diation was completed. Having since been advised tha

t the m ediation w as unsucce ssful, the Court rev iewed the

Motion and Defenda nts’ Re sponse in Opposition. F or the foll owing rea sons, Pla intiffs’ Motion to Am

end the Com

plaint is GRANTED

. In this case, Plaintiff Kristen A. Boy d (“Mrs. Boy d”) sustained personal injurie s in a motor vehicl e accide nt on Septe mber 6, 2012 invol ving a vehic le operated by De fendant George Cur tiss Fleet wood in the course of

his em ploym ent with Def endant Mum

ford and Mi ller. Plaintiffs filed the initial Com plaint on July 5, 2014, in w hich Mrs. Boyd a lleged her injurie s were c aused as a result of Defe nda nts ’ neg lig enc e. Ba sed on i nfo rmati on r ecen tly o bta ine d in dis cov ery, Plaintiff s are now seeking to a

mend t he Com plaint to inc lude alleg ations of reckless an d wanton co nduct and request pu nitive d amages. A party may ame nd its plead

ing after a response

has been f

iled pursua

nt to Rule 15(a) either

“by leave of court or written con sent of the adverse p arty; and leave shal l be freely given when justice so require s.” 1 The rule thus libera

lly perm its am endments to plead

ings “u nless the opp osing party would be se

riously prejudiced thereby.” 2 Further, where the statute of lim itations for a proposed claim has expired, the claim will nevertheless relate back to the date of the original filing so longas it “ arose out o f the conduc t, transa ction, or occurre nce set f

orth or attempted to b e set forth i n the orig inal plead ing.” 3
It is clea r to the Cou

rt, and a ppears undi sputed am

ong the part

ies, that the amen dment s now propos ed relate back to the

same motor vehicle a ccident und erlyi ng t he o rig ina l Co mplai nt f or p urp ose s of Rul e 15 . Impo rtan tly, Defenda nts do not ar

gue the am

endments are pr

oposed out of

bad faith, undue delay , or inexc usable ca

relessne ss, nor ha

ve they demon strated a

ny ser ious prejudic e to their case. R ather, t hey ur ge the Cour

t to deny the Motion be cause4 Defs. Resp. to Pl. Mot. to Amend Compl. at 6, ¶ 16.

Defenda nts’ “ actions do no t rise to th e legal sta ndard of w anton or re ckless” required for punitiv e dam ages. 4 While p erhaps a r elevant c onsiderati on for the jury or on a m

otion under S uperior C ourt Civil R ule 50, thi s assertio n has sim ply no bearing on the Court’s determination under Rule 15(a). Thus, given the nature of the prop osed claims and Dela ware’ s policy

to freely perm

it amendments absent a showing of

serious pr

ejudice , the Cour

t hereby grants Pla

intiffs’ Motion to Amend the Complaint

. IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ William C. Carpen ter, Jr. Judge William C. Ca

rpenter, Jr. WCCjr:twp

cc: Cailah Kerchevall, Civil Case Manager