Opinion ID: 2765922
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Textual CR 15(c) Requirements

Text: Martin satisfies both textual requirements because FCCNA had actual notice of Martin's claim before the statute of limitations expired and should have known that but for a mistake, it would have been named. On July 24, 2007, three weeks before the statute of limitations expired, GCC tendered the defense and demanded indemnity from Fletcher General, explaining that because the equipment may have been installed ... by Wright Schuchart Harbor Company, Fletcher General was liable. CP at 62-63. Indeed, FCCNA concedes it had 'notice' of Martin's lawsuit but argues that there is no evidence that FCCNA should have known that but for a mistake, it would have been named because it contends Wright Schuchart Harbor Joint Venture (a completely different entity) installed the machine. Suppl. Br. ofResp'ts Fletcher General, Inc. and FCCNA at 18-19. 9 Martin v. Dematic No. 89924-0 However, FCCNA's argument is beside the point. Whether Martin would win on the merits and prove WSH actually installed the machine (instead of Joint Venture) is a separate issue from whether FCCNA knew that but for a mistake, Martin would have named FCCNA as WSH's true successor in her complaint. The defense letter from GCC said the equipment may have been installed by Wright Schuchart Harbor Company, not Joint Venture, which should have led FCCNA to believe that but for a mistake, it would have been named in Martin's complaint. Thus, the notice and should have known requirements are satisfied.