Fick testified during his deposition that Reist provided his name and contact information following the car accident. Such addition has been historically prohibited. The Court argues Fick did not seek to amend the name of a party, but wanted to add Reist to the action after the statute of limitations had run. The party also knew or should have known that it would have been named in the original pleading but for the mistake as to its identity. Rule 1033(b) states an amendment correcting the name of a party who had claims asserted against it in the original pleading will relate back to the commencement of the matter if the party was given notice proper notice and such amendment will not prejudice the party’s defense of its case. Needless to say, the Superior Court did not agree. Lastly, he argued the trial court erred and abused its discretion by granting Barbon’s motion for summary judgment when a genuine issue of material fact would have existed had his motions been granted. Second, he argued that the trial court erred and abused its discretion by denying his first motion since Barbon failed to disclose Reist’s identity before the statute of limitation ran. First, he argued that the trial court erred and abused its discretion by denying his second motion for leave to amend despite his compliance with Pa.R.C.P. Fick’s appeal followed.įick made three arguments in his appeal. This motion was also denied, but the Court granted Barbon’s motion for summary judgment. After his first motion was denied, Fick filed a second motion for leave to file an amended complaint stating that Pa.R.C.P. Fick alleged that Barbon and his insurance company concealed Reist’s identity. In August 2018, Fick filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint to name Reist as defendant in the matter. When Fick filed suit in July 2018, he only named Barbon as defendant and the statute of limitations expired soon after. At the time of the incident, Barbon’s grandson, Dean Reist (“Reist”), was driving. At issue here is Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure (Pa,R.C.P.) 1033-which explains correcting the name of a defendant after litigation has commenced-and the application of an amendment to the rule.įick alleges that on July 5, 2016, he was rear-ended by a vehicle owned by Barbon. Barbon, plaintiff Terrence Fick (“Fick”) appealed the Superior Court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of defendant Barry Barbon (“Barbon”) following a car accident. Jby Vincent Terrasi Civil Procedure, Motion Practice, Litigation, Negligence, Of Interest, Pennsylvania 0 comments What’s In A Name? The Wrong One Can End a Plaintiff’s Case (PA)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |