Source: http://tennesseedefenselitigation.com/BlogEntry.aspx?id=149&tag=Tennessee%20Comparative%20Fault
Timestamp: 2019-01-22 17:23:36
Document Index: 623446306

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 28']

When a plaintiff knows the identity of a potential tortfeasor at the time of the filing of plaintiff's original complaint and prior to the running of the applicable statute of limitations and the plaintiff chooses not to sue said known potential tortfeasor, can the plaintiff then later rely on the 90–day savings provision of Tenn. Code Ann. § 20–1–119 in order to add the previously known potential tortfeasor to the existing lawsuit after the defendant alleges comparative fault against the known potential tortfeasor notwithstanding the expiration of the statute of limitations?
The Tennessee Supreme Court first addressed several different federal decisions that misinterpreted or ignored Tennessee law on comparative fault. Ultimately, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that a plaintiff’s “ability to utilize Tenn. Code Ann. § 20–1–119 to amend its complaint to assert a claim against a non-party against whom a defendant has asserted a comparative fault claim or to file a separate new complaint against such a non-party does not depend on whether the non-party was either known or unknown to the plaintiff when its original complaint was filed.” Id. at 6. The Court then provided the formal response to the certified question of law from the Federal Court as follows:
A plaintiff may rely on the ninety-day savings provision in Tenn. Code Ann. § 20–1–119 in order to add a previously known potential non-party tortfeasor to an existing lawsuit even when the plaintiff knew the identity of the potential tortfeasor at the time of the filing of the plaintiff's original complaint but chose not to sue the potential tortfeasor
This is an important Tennessee Supreme Court decision that provides a definitive answer to this question that has caused some divergent court decisions. Essentially, there is no longer any argument that can be made against a plaintiff who adds a non-party outside the statute of limitations under T.C.A. § 20-1-119 on the basis the plaintiff knew of the identity of the tortfeasor but did not add them as a party. Because it may be helpful to some to have all of the language of T.C.A. § 20-1-119, I will provide it here as follows:
(b) A cause of action brought within ninety (90) days pursuant to subsection (a) shall not be barred by any statute of limitations. This section shall not extend any applicable statute of repose, nor shall this section permit the plaintiff to maintain an action against a person when such an action is barred by an applicable statute of repose.
(c) This section shall neither shorten nor lengthen the applicable statute of limitations for any cause of action, other than as provided in subsection (a).
(d) Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to any civil action commenced pursuant to § 28-1-105, except an action originally commenced in general sessions court and subsequently recommenced in circuit or chancery court.
(e) This section shall not limit the right of any defendant to allege in an answer or amended answer that a person not a party to the suit caused or contributed to the injury for which the plaintiff seeks recovery.
(f) As used in this section, “person” means any individual or legal entity.
(g) Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, this section applies to suits involving governmental entities.
Tennessee courts are sure to decide more and more cases on this statute and on Comparative Fault in Tennessee. This doctrine has generated a significant amount of appellate case law because of the complexity of the concept in so many situations.
TAGS: Tennessee Comparative Fault, Statute of Limitations, Civil Procedure