Court Opinion

ID: 9714925
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:49:20.41202+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:29.732025
License: Public Domain

GARRARD, Presiding Judge.
I respectfully dissent and would reverse the summary judgment.
IC 34-1-2-8 provides,
*1246“If, after the commencement of an action, the plaintiff fails therein, from any cause except negligence in the prosecution, or the action abate, or be defeated by the death of a party, or judgment be arrested or reversed on appeal, a new action may be brought within five [5] years after such determination, and be deemed a continuation of the first, for the purposes herein contemplated.”
Moreover, Trial Rule 3 provides that a civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.
If, as we have often stated, statutes of limitations should be liberally construed, it is reasonable to construe this one as applying to an action properly commenced within the appropriate two (2) year period although the named defendant was in fact deceased. This action was literally “defeated by the death of a party.”
Thus, the subsequent action against the estate was properly commenced since it was within the five (5) year period provided. See Ware v. Waterman (1969), 146 Ind.App. 237, 263 N.E.2d 708.
While I recognize that such an interpretation may open the door for litigation otherwise thought barred, it is nevertheless what the legislature has provided. In addition it satisfies the basic purpose of limitations statutes since the “defective” action was actually commenced within the appropriate statutory period. Clearly, the plaintiff did not intend to let the matter pass.
I would reverse and remand for trial.