Adams, J. v. Reese, D., Adams, J. v. Reese, D. No. 927 WDA 2016

May 12, 2013 motor vehicle collision between Adamses’ vehicle and a Reese vehicle driven by Dane Reese’s son.
Adamses filed a complaint on May 5, 2015 naming David A. Reese and Karen C. Reese as defendants for negligent operation/ownership.
June 22, 2015 Reese defendants answered and asserted Dane, not named, was the actual operator.
November 1, 2015 Adamses moved to amend the complaint under Pa.R.C.P. 1033 to correct the driver’s name, alleging a misnomer.
November 10, 2015 trial court denied the motion to amend; later, May 16, 2016, the court dismissed all claims against Reese.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether amendment to correct misnomer after SOL was permitted	Adamses sought to correct a misnomer, not add a new party	Amendment would add a new and distinct party after the SOL	Amendment denied; adding Dane as a new party after SOL not permitted
Whether service on Dane Reese at his residence effected proper service on Dane	Service on an adult in Dane’s household should reach the right party	Service did not bring Dane before court; not proper service on Dane	Service on Dane not deemed sufficient to make Dane a party; amendment still barred
Whether Dane was properly before the court	Intended to sue Dane as operator; misnaming prevented correct party	Only David and Karen were before the court; Dane was not properly before it	Dane not properly before court; amendment to bring in Dane not allowed

Saracina v. Cotoia, 208 A.2d 764 (Pa. 1965) (amendment to add new party after SOL not permitted when right party was not before court)
Piehl v. City of Philadelphia, 987 A.2d 146 (Pa. 2009) (permits amendment when misidentification does not add a new party; distinguishes Saracina)
Hamilton v. Bechtel, 657 A.2d 980 (Pa. Super. 1995) (liberal approach to amendments; wrong party v. misnomer guidance)
Diaz v. Schultz, 841 A.2d 546 (Pa. Super. 2004) (standard of review for petition to amend: abuse of discretion)