85 N.E.3d 866
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- Brown sustained injuries in a July 24, 2014 motorcycle accident and was treated at Deaconess Hospital; he was released July 25 and subsequently arrested July 30, 2014 for alleged DUI and held at the Vanderburgh County Detention Center; he filed a tort claim notice on January 20, 2015 addressed to VCSD, Sheriff Wedding, the County, the Indiana Political Subdivision Risk Management Commission, and the Attorney General; Brown filed a complaint on January 11, 2016 naming the City of Evansville and unidentified officers as defendants; Brown moved to amend to substitute VCSD and the County as defendants in September 2016; VCSD and the County moved to dismiss the amended complaint on October 27, 2016 alleging the claim was time-barred and not timely related back to the original complaint to allow amendment to relate back; the trial court dismissed, and Brown appealed confirming the two-year statute of limitations expired on July 30, 2016 and the amended complaint was filed August 8, 2016.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended complaint relates back under Trial Rule 15(C). | Brown contends relation back applies. | VCSD/County argue lack of notice and failure to satisfy 15(C) conditions. | Relation back denied; amendment not timely relate back. |
| Whether Brown’s claims against VCSD and the County were timely under the statute of limitations. | Amendment should relate back to original filing date. | Amended complaint filed after 2-year limit. | Amendment outside SOL; time-barred. |
| Whether Brown satisfied the 120-day notice requirement or imputed notice to substituted defendants. | Notice via tort claim notice should suffice. | No notice to VCSD/County within 120 days; no imputation by identity of interest. | No notice within 120 days; no imputation; relation back fails. |
| Whether there was sufficient basis to impute knowledge of the filing to VCSD/County despite lack of shared counsel. | Shared law-enforcement interests imply notice. | No evidence of shared attorney/identity of interest. | No imputed notice; no effective knowledge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Veolia Water Indpls., LLC v. Nat’l Trust Ins. Co., 3 N.E.3d 1 (Ind. 2014) (statutory/PPM-based improper purport of Rule 12(B)(6) review; standard guidance on procedural motions)
- Rieth-Riley Constr. Co. v. Gibson, 923 N.E.2d 472 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (relation back limitations under Rule 15(C) and notice requirements)
- Porter Cty. Sheriff Dep’t v. Guzorek, 857 N.E.2d 363 (Ind. 2006) (notice of the pending claim must be such that added party received notice)
- Magic Circle Corp. v. Schoolcraft, 4 N.E.3d 768 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (relation back when within 120 days and other conditions met; later affirmed by Camoplast Crocker, LLC v. Schoolcraft)
- Camoplast Crocker, LLC v. Schoolcraft, 12 N.E.3d 251 (Ind. 2014) (affirmation of relation-back principles under Rule 15(C))
- Raisor v. Jimmie’s Raceway Pub, Inc., 946 N.E.2d 72 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (120-day relation-back limit; timing considerations for notice)
- Graves v. Ind. Univ. Health, 32 N.E.3d 1196 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (considerations for imputing knowledge of filing)
- Miller v. Danz, 36 N.E.3d 455 (Ind. 2015) (knew or should have known that but for a mistake the action would have been brought)