RENDERED: MAY 31, 2024; 10:00 A.M.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Court of Appeals

NO. 2023-CA-1247-MR

MICHAEL W. RITCHIE APPELLANT 

v. 

APPEAL FROM BOONE CIRCUIT COURT

HONORABLE JAMES R. SCHRAND, II, JUDGE

ACTION NO. 21-CI-01330

STATE FARM FIRE AND 

CASUALTY COMPANY APPELLEE 

OPINION

AFFIRMING

**   **  **

BEFORE: COMBS, A. JONES, AND KAREM, JUDGES.

COMBS, JUDGE: Michael W. Ritchie appeals an order of the Boone Circuit 

Court dismissing his civil action against State Farm Fire and Casualty Company 

because it was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. After our review, we 

affirm.

On November 3, 2021, Ritchie filed a civil action against Jace 

Courtney in Boone Circuit Court. Ritchie alleged that he suffered back and neck 
-2-

injuries when his vehicle collided with a vehicle operated by Courtney on the 

morning of October 2, 2019. As a result of the collision, Ritchie received basic 

reparation benefits; the last payment was made to him on November 4, 2019. The 

lawsuit was dismissed by agreed order entered on June 14, 2022. 

However, on August 8, 2022, Ritchie filed another motion in the 

action. He sought to amend his complaint to name a new defendant and to assert a 

claim against his auto insurance carrier for underinsured motorist benefits. Ritchie 

withdrew the motion on September 27, 2022. On this same date, he filed an 

amended complaint naming State Farm Fire and Casualty Company as a defendant. 

On October 19, 2022, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 

Company (State Farm Mutual) filed an answer. It explained that Ritchie had 

misidentified it as State Farm Fire and Casualty Company in the amended

complaint. However, according to the parties, this error is immaterial to the 

appeal. We also note that neither party addressed the effect of the order entered on 

June 14, 2022, dismissing the action. 

In its answer, State Farm Mutual alleged that the action was timebarred. In April 2023, it filed a motion to dismiss. Ritchie responded and argued

that the provisions of CR1 15.03 applied to save his claim. CR 15.03 preserves an 

1 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
-3-

amended complaint from a defendant’s statute-of-limitations defense by treating 

the amendment as if it had been filed at the time of the original pleading. 

On October 6, 2023, the circuit court granted the motion of State Farm 

Mutual and dismissed the claim as untimely. It rejected Ritchie’s contention that 

the provisions of CR 15.03 applied to save the claim. This appeal followed. 

The parties agree that Ritchie’s amended complaint was filed beyond 

the limitations period. Generally, “[a] new party cannot be brought into a lawsuit 

by amended complaint when the statute of limitations governing the claim against 

that party has already expired.” Combs v. Albert Kahn Associates, Inc., 183 

S.W.3d 190, 194 (Ky. App. 2006). Ritchie argues that the circuit court erred by 

failing to conclude that the claim against his auto insurer was timely because his 

amended complaint related back to the filing of the original complaint. He asserts

that “[t]he singular issue before this Court is whether, pursuant to Civil Rule 15.03, 

the Amended Complaint relates back to the original date of filing of November 3, 

2021.” 

CR 15.03 provides, in relevant part, as follows:

(1) Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the 

amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, 

or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the 

original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date 

of the original pleading.

(2) An amendment changing the party against whom a 

claim is asserted relates back if the condition of 
-4-

paragraph (1) is satisfied and, within the period provided 

by law for commencing the action against him, the party 

to be brought in by amendment (a) has received such

notice of the institution of the action that he will not be 

prejudiced in maintaining his defense on the merits, and

(b) knew or should have known that, but for a mistake

concerning the identity of the proper party, the action 

would have been brought against him.

(Emphasis added.) 

Courts strictly construe the requirements of CR 15.03. Phelps v. Wehr

Constructors, Inc., 168 S.W.3d 395 (Ky. App. 2004). We have held that the kind 

of mistake to which the provision applies concerns a “misnomer” or 

“misidentification” of the party against whom to bring an action. Cabrera v. JBS

USA, LLC, 568 S.W.3d 865 (Ky. App. 2019). The provisions of CR 15.03 do not 

apply where an injured plaintiff is fully aware of the existence of a potential 

defendant -- but not of its legal liability for his injuries and for that reason does not 

commence an action against it. Phelps, supra. 

Ritchie was fully aware of the existence of a potential party -- his own 

underinsured motorists coverage carrier -- within the limitations period. He 

explains that he did not name his insurer in the initial complaint because he was 

unaware of the coverage limits of Courtney’s auto insurance policy and unaware 

that his own carrier would be liable to him for underinsured motorist coverage 

benefits. This is not the sort of mistake addressed by the relation-back rule. 

Ritchie’s failure to name State Farm Mutual as a defendant was not due to a 
-5-

misnomer or misidentification. Moreover, State Farm Mutual did not know -- nor 

did it have reason to know before the limitations period expired -- that Ritchie 

would have brought an action against it if he had only known of its potential 

liability for underinsured motorist coverage benefits. Ritchie contends that under 

the circumstances, the interests of justice dictate that his amended complaint relate 

back. However, he overlooks the countervailing interest of State Farm Mutual in a 

limitations period for actions filed against it. 

The circuit court did not err by concluding that the amended 

complaint did not relate back to the original complaint. The action was properly 

dismissed as untimely. 

We affirm the order of the Boone Circuit Court. 

ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:

C. Ed Massey

Erlanger, Kentucky 

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Douglas B. Schloemer

Ft. Mitchell, Kentucky