Michael W. Ritchie v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

• Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky
• Decided: May 30, 2024
• Docket: 2023 CA 001247
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

RENDERED: MAY 31, 2024; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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

APPEAL FROM BOONE CIRCUIT COURT v. 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 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 time-

barred. 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.

-2- 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

-3- 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

-4- 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: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

C. Ed Massey Douglas B. Schloemer Erlanger, Kentucky Ft. Mitchell, Kentucky

-5-