Opinion ID: 1670764
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Need for Authorization to Amend Under Section 20-1-119

Text: Plaintiff's claims of negligence arising out of the automobile accident in this case are subject to the one-year statute of limitations for personal injuries. Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-104(a)(1) (2000). Since Plaintiff's alleged injuries occurred on August 10, 2002, the statute of limitations on her claims originally expired on August 10, 2003. As a general rule, all parties against whom fault is to be alleged must have been named as defendants by that date. At issue in this case is the application of Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-1-119 to extend the statute of limitations. In 1992, the Tennessee Supreme Court decided McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn.1992), which adopted a system of modified comparative fault to be utilized in tort litigation. See Curtis v. G.E. Capital Modular Space, 155 S.W.3d 877, 880-81 (Tenn.2005). Under this system, a plaintiff can recover so long as the plaintiff's negligence is less than the defendant's negligence, and a plaintiff's recovery must be limited in proportion to his or her percentage of fault. McIntyre, 833 S.W.2d at 57. In adopting this system, we attempted to reconcile a plaintiff's interest in being made whole with a defendant's interest in paying only those damages for which he or she is responsible. Brown v. WalMart Discount Cities, 12 S.W.3d 785, 788 (Tenn.2000). With regard to attributing fault to nonparties, we stated in McIntyre that [F]airness and efficiency require that defendants called upon to answer allegations in negligence be permitted to allege, as an affirmative defense, that a nonparty caused or contributed to the injury or damage for which recovery is sought. In cases where such a defense is raised, the trial court shall instruct the jury to assign this nonparty the percentage of the total negligence for which he is responsible. However, in order for a plaintiff to recover a judgment against such additional person, the plaintiff must have made a timely amendment to his complaint and caused process to be served on such additional person. Thereafter, the additional party will be required to answer the amended complaint. The procedures shall be in accordance with the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 58 (emphasis added). The McIntyre Court did not indicate whether a trial court's permission for a plaintiff to file an amended complaint would be required under the circumstances described above. In 1993, in response to our decision in McIntyre , the General Assembly enacted Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-1-119 (1994) to provide a means for a plaintiff to amend a complaint to add as a defendant any third party alleged by another defendant to have caused or contributed to the injury, even if the applicable statute of limitations would otherwise bar the claim against the third party. 1993 Tenn. Pub. Acts Ch. 407, section 1; see also Curtis, 155 S.W.3d at 881; Brown, 12 S.W.3d at 788. Specifically, section 20-1-119 provides, in pertinent part: 20-1-119. Comparative fault-Joinder of third party defendants. (a) In civil actions where comparative fault is or becomes an issue, if a defendant named in an original complaint initiating a suit filed within the applicable statute of limitations, or named in an amended complaint filed within the applicable statute of limitations, alleges in an answer or amended answer to the original or amended complaint that a person not a party to the suit caused or contributed to the injury or damage for which the plaintiff seeks recovery, and if the plaintiff's cause or causes of action against such person would be barred by any applicable statute of limitations but for the operation of this section, the plaintiff may, within ninety (90) days of the filing of the first answer or first amended answer alleging such person's fault, either: (1) Amend the complaint to add such person as a defendant pursuant to Rule 15 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and cause process to be issued for that person; or (2) Institute a separate action against that person by filing a summons and complaint. . . . (emphasis added). The text of section 20-1-119(a)(1) does not indicate that the amendment of a complaint under these circumstances requires the permission of the trial court. The text states that within this ninety-day time frame, a plaintiff may ... amend the complaint to add such person as a defendant... and cause process to issue for that person. Considered alone these words suggest that a plaintiff has the right to act unilaterally, without the permission of adverse parties or by leave of court. In the instant case, if the above-quoted language represented the entirety of subsection (a), Plaintiff would clearly have complied with the statute, and the action she took to amend her complaint and to cause service of process to issue within ninety days would be adequate. No further discussion would be needed. However, subsection (a)(1) includes additional language that directs that such amendment shall be made pursuant to Rule 15 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Tenn.Code Ann. § 20-1-119(a)(1). The legislature's inclusion of this qualifier in its direction to parties seeking to amend requires the Court to analyze Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 15 in conjunction with section 20-1-119(a)(1). Rule 15.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, the portion of this rule applying to amendments, provides in pertinent part: A party may amend the party's pleadings once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, if the pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been set for trial, the party may so amend it at any time within fifteen (15) days after it is served. Otherwise a party may amend the party's pleadings only by written consent of the adverse party or by leave of court; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. A party shall plead in response to an amended pleading within the time remaining for response to the original pleading or within fifteen (15) days after service of the amended pleading, whichever period may be longer, unless the court otherwise orders. (emphasis added). Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 15.01 contains three distinct provisions relating to the amendment of pleadings. [3] The first provision in this Rule allows a party to amend a pleading once without permission of the court or other parties. However, by its terms it applies only to pleadings amended before a responsive pleading is served. In contrast, the right to amend granted in Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-1-119 governs amendments made after the filing of the first answer or amended answer alleging [another] person's fault. Thus, the first part of the first sentence of Rule 15.01 is inapplicable to the amendment of pleadings under section 20-1-119. In all other situations, the right to amend under Rule 15.01 is governed by the second sentence of this Rule, which permits amendments only by written consent of the adverse party or by leave of court, with the understanding that leave is to be freely given when justice so requires. Since section 20-1-119 is always invoked by the filing of a responsive pleading, we conclude that its reference to Rule 15 is a reference specifically to the second sentence of Rule 15.01. Therefore, Plaintiff's right to amend a complaint to add a defendant in a comparative fault action under section 20-1-119 requires written consent of the adverse parties or leave of court. Plaintiff in this case admittedly did not obtain written consent of the adverse parties before attempting to amend her complaint. Thus, we must determine whether the plaintiff in this case properly secured leave of court to amend her complaint.