Opinion
C.A. No. 98C-03-011-VAB.
Date Submitted: June 18, 2000.
Date Decided: August 1, 2000.
Letter Opinion and Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint — MOTION GRANTED EXCEPT FOR PROPOSED COUNT IV
Dear Mr. Linarducci, Ms. McGonigle, and Mr. Ransom:
This is the Court's Letter Opinion and Order on Plaintiff Earl L. Wilson's Motion to Amend the Complaint in order to include a new Defendant, Lincoln Mercury of New Castle, Incorporated ("Lincoln Mercury"). Lincoln Mercury is already a party to this action via a third party Complaint filed by the Consumers Life Insurance Company. For the reasons stated herein, the Plaintiffs Motion to Amend is GRANTED except for proposed Count W.
FACTS
In June 1995, Mr. Wilson was looking to purchase a 1995 Mercury Grand Marquis from Lincoln Mercury of New Castle. At that time, Mr. Wilson owned a 1993 Crown Victoria. When Mr. Wilson purchased the Crown Victoria, he also had purchased a disability insurance policy from Consumers Life Insurance. The policy appears to have been beneficial to Mr. Wilson, because he had received benefits from that policy in the past.
When discussing the purchase of the new car, Mr. Wilson informed the salesman that he had a history of health problems. Mr. Wilson alleges that before he purchased the car, he told the car dealership's salesman that he had an existing disability policy with Consumers Life through which he had received benefits, and that he was concerned about losing the disability coverage that he presently enjoyed on his other car. Mr. Wilson claims that the salesman assured him that, if he purchased the new car and purchased a new policy, he would not be excluded from coverage for pre-existing medical conditions. Relying on the representation, on June 10, 1996, Mr. Wilson traded in his old car and purchased the new car. At that time, he also purchased a new disability insurance policy from Consumers Life.
Thereafter, Mr. Wilson became ill and filed an application for disability insurance benefits with Consumers Life. The insurance company denied coverage, citing the preexisting conditions clause in the contract as the reason for denial. Mr. Wilson filed suit against Consumers Life in March 1998, claiming that the policy's pre-existing conditions clauses were conflicting, and also claiming that the dealership salesman told him that he would be covered, and that the insurance company failed to act in good faith.
In May 1998, Consumers Life filed an answer to the Complaint and filed a Third Party Complaint against Lincoln Mercury seeking contribution and indemnification for any losses it could incur as a result of the representations made by the dealership's sales staff. On April 14, 2000, five months after the arbitrator's order in this case, and almost two years after Lincoln Mercury became a party to this lawsuit as a third party Defendant, the Plaintiff sought to amend the Complaint to include Lincoln Mercury as a Defendant. This Motion was first heard before this Judge on June 9, 2000 during Monday morning routine Motions. The Court at that time declined to rule on the Motion and asked Mr. Linarducci and Ms. McGonigle to submit letters on their respective positions. The parties timely provided the Court with their submissions, and this is the Court's Opinion following those submissions.
DECISION
Plaintiffs problem in this Motion is that the statute of limitations has run, as of June 1998 or 1999, on any claims against Lincoln Mercury of New Castle. Without the grant of amendment to the pleadings, Wilson's claims against the dealership will be time barred. Superior Court Civil Rule 15(c) is the only vehicle available for a Plaintiff to amend the Complaint to change or add a Defendant after the statute of limitations has run. See 3 Moore's Federal Practice § 15.19 [3][a]. For a Court to grant an amendment adding parties, the following requirements must be satisfied:
The claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading must arise from the conduct, transaction, or occurrence advanced in the original pleading; The new party in the amended pleading must have received adequate notice as not to be prejudiced;
The new party must have known or should have known that the action would have been brought against the named party but for the mistake;
The notice and "should have known" factors must be satisfied within the period prescribed for service of process.Id. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 15(c).
The purpose of Rule 15 is to encourage the disposition of litigation on its merits; a decision to permit or deny an amendment is left to the discretion of the Trial Judge. Grand Ventures v. Whaley, Del. Supr., 632 A.2d 63, 72 (1993) (citing Bellanca Corp. v. Bellanca, Del. Supr., 3 Storey 378, 169 A.2d 620, 622 (1961)). It is the general policy in this jurisdiction to be liberal in permitting amendments to pleadings unless the opposing party would be seriously prejudiced thereby. Dunfee v. Blue Rock Van Storage, Inc., Del. Super., 266 A.2d 187, 188 (1970). But there are limits under Rule 15(c) on relating the amended pleading back to the original pleading in a case where the statute of limitations is implicated. See Naylor v. Smith, Del. Super., C.A. No. 96C-07-317, Quillen, J. (Feb. 10, 1997); Hall v. McGuigan, Del. Super., C.A. No. 95C-10-222, Quillen, J. (Feb. 11, 1998); Johnson v. Paul's Plastering, Del. Super., C.A. No. 98C-05-088, Quillen, J. (July 30, 1999); Shively v. Ken-Crest Centers for Exceptional Persons, Del. Super., C.A. No. 96C-05-316, Quillen, J. (Aug. 10, 1999).
Here, Lincoln Mercury argues that the Plaintiff has taken no discovery in this case and has asserted no new factual allegations in its amended Complaint. Lincoln Mercury also states that this case was pending for well over a year prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations and yet the Plaintiff never sought to amend the Complaint at that time. Lincoln Mercury further argues that the Plaintiff knew of the possibility of adding Lincoln Mercury as a Defendant long before the statute of limitations expired since Plaintiff had asserted a claim against the insurance company based on the statements of Lincoln Mercury employees. Lincoln Mercury claims that the third factor — whether Lincoln Mercury knew or should have known that but for the mistake in identity, it would have been sued — has not been met because the Plaintiff made a conscious decision not to sue Lincoln Mercury.
With some jest, one might say it is a shame that both sides cannot lose. As to liability on agency theories, there is no bona fide prejudice to the Third Party Defendant Lincoln Mercury, and frankly the case might be more simple to try if Lincoln Mercury were also a party Defendant. Obviously, the discovery schedule can be adjusted. But there is no justifiable reason for the late Motion and late joinder by the Plaintiff. Even recognizing that we have all made mistakes, it would not be unfair to be critical of Plaintiffs counsel. Indeed, the Plaintiff himself dealt with the Lincoln Mercury salesman. It sure looks like the Plaintiff made a conscious choice not to sue Lincoln Mercury. 3 Moore's Federal Practice § 15.19[3][d]. No good reason has been offered for any mistake.
I guess I come down in favor of giving the Plaintiff his full day in Court, so long as there are no new factual obligations or additional theories of liability against the Third Party Defendant in the Amended Complaint. It will actually simplify the case for trial, make the presentation to the jury more sensible, help prevent a verdict based on hyper-technical form grounds, and give a genuine focus to the substance of the dispute. But, new claims should not be intertwined into the case at this late date.
Proposed Count IV of the Amended Complaint seeks to hold Lincoln Mercury liable if Consumers Life "prevails in its attempt to deny benefits under the policy and/or rescind such a policy." That is not a claim that mirrors the indemnity or contribution of the third party claim. Count IV alleges an independent tort that is based on misrepresentation, not encompassed in the existing third party claim and not necessarily one to be anticipated by Lincoln Mercury. As such, given the delay well beyond the limits of the statute, the Court feels the balance shifts in Lincoln Mercury's favor as to proposed Count W.
Except for proposed Count IV, the Plaintiffs Motion to Amend the Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint consistent with this Letter Opinion within 10 days. IT IS SO ORDERED. Maybe both sides lost after all.