Diane Flynn Et Vir v. Sarah Campbell
CV-16-0199-PR
Ariz.Sep 22, 2017Background
- In October 2012 Diane Flynn was injured in a car accident involving Sarah Campbell; Flynn received a police crash report identifying Campbell’s insurer (State Farm).
- One day before the two-year limitations period expired Flynn (pro se) sued State Farm, alleging it had assumed responsibility for the insured and asserting negligence and punitive damages.
- State Farm moved to dismiss (Arizona law generally forecloses direct actions against an insurer for an insured’s tort), and Flynn then retained counsel and filed an amended complaint naming Campbell as defendant within the limitations-plus-service period.
- Campbell moved to dismiss the amended complaint as time-barred and not relating back under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 15(c); the superior court dismissed, finding Flynn made a mistake of law, not identity.
- The court of appeals reversed; the Arizona Supreme Court granted review to resolve the standard for relation back under Rule 15(c).
- The Supreme Court held the amended complaint related back because Campbell knew or should have known Flynn mistakenly failed to name her, and Flynn’s error was a cognizable mistake under Rule 15(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an amendment that substitutes a new defendant relates back under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 15(c) | Flynn argued the amendment relates back because the claim arose from the same occurrence and the newly named defendant had notice and should have known she was the proper defendant but for a mistake | Campbell argued Flynn made a mistake of law (a choice to sue the insurer) and therefore the amendment does not relate back | Court held Rule 15(c) allows relation back if the added party knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning identity (factual or legal), it would have been sued; Flynn’s amendment related back |
| Standard for evaluating "mistake concerning the identity of the proper party" under Rule 15(c) | Flynn urged a broad view allowing both factual and legal mistakes to qualify if they caused the plaintiff to sue the wrong party | Campbell urged that a legal mistake or deliberate choice to sue one party instead of another is not cognizable | Court adopted the U.S. Supreme Court’s Krupski approach: focus on what the prospective defendant knew or should have known; legal or factual mistakes qualify unless the plaintiff deliberately chose the defendant while fully understanding the differences |
| Relevance of plaintiff’s pro se status to Rule 15(c) analysis | Flynn (implicitly) relied on her pro se status as explaining the error | Campbell argued pro se status should not relax relation-back rules and would undermine repose | Court held pro se litigants are held to same standards as attorneys but their lack of legal knowledge may be relevant to whether the omission was a mistake vs. a deliberate choice; no special leniency that would nullify limitations protections |
| Whether the specific facts here show a cognizable Rule 15(c) mistake and notice to Campbell | Flynn argued her original suit against State Farm reflected a mistake about the proper defendant and Campbell had actual notice within the limitations-plus-service period | Campbell contended Flynn intentionally sued State Farm (a strategic or legal choice) and therefore relation back is improper | Court found Flynn’s filing against State Farm was a mistake (legal misunderstanding), Campbell had notice and should have known she would have been sued but for the mistake, so the amended complaint relates back |
Key Cases Cited
- Krupski v. Costa Crociere S. p. A., 560 U.S. 538 (2010) (focus inquiry on what the prospective defendant knew or should have known; legal mistakes can qualify under Rule 15(c))
- Tyman v. Hintz Concrete, Inc., 214 Ariz. 73 (App. 2007) (prior Arizona interpretation of Rule 15(c), overruled to the extent inconsistent with Krupski)
- Leonard v. Parry, 219 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2000) (discusses types of mistakes under Rule 15(c))
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys., 166 Ariz. 514 (App. 1990) (Arizona law precludes a direct cause of action against a tortfeasor’s insurer)