378 P.3d 441
Ariz. Ct. App.2016Background
- On Oct. 17, 2012, Diane Flynn was injured in a car collision with Sarah Campbell; the police crash report listed Campbell’s insurer (State Farm) and policy information.
- One day before the two-year statute of limitations expired, Flynn (pro se) sued State Farm alleging it had “assumed full responsibility” for its insured’s actions.
- Flynn later retained counsel and filed an amended complaint that replaced State Farm with Campbell as defendant; Campbell moved to dismiss as time-barred because the amendment did not “relate back” under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 15(c).
- The superior court dismissed, finding Flynn’s error was a mistake of law (knowing the driver’s identity), not a Rule 15(c) mistake of identity.
- The appellate court examined whether Flynn’s original pleading reflected a cognizable mistake concerning the identity of the proper party and whether Campbell (through State Farm) knew or should have known of that mistake.
- Court held Flynn’s pro se filing alleged facts showing she believed State Farm had assumed responsibility, so her error was a Rule 15(c) mistake; the amended complaint related back and was not time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether naming insurer (State Farm) instead of driver (Campbell) is a cognizable Rule 15(c) “mistake concerning identity” | Flynn: She believed State Farm had assumed responsibility and therefore thought she sued the proper party | Campbell: Flynn knew Campbell was the driver and therefore made a mistake of law or deliberately chose to sue State Farm | Court: Flynn’s complaint alleged a factual misimpression about State Farm’s role; that is a cognizable Rule 15(c) mistake |
| Whether the amended complaint relates back under Rule 15(c) (notice & knowledge requirement) | Flynn: State Farm received timely notice and, through that notice, Campbell knew or should have known she would have been sued but for Flynn’s mistake | Campbell: Argued Flynn had no misimpression and thus amendment does not relate back | Court: State Farm received notice within the limitations + Rule 4(i) period; that notice (and the record) shows Campbell knew or should have known of the identity mistake, so relation back applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Pargman v. Vickers, 208 Ariz. 573 (recognizing imputation of insurer’s notice to insured for relation-back analysis)
- Tyman v. Hintz Concrete, Inc., 214 Ariz. 73 (clarifies Rule 15(c) limits: no relation back for deliberate decisions or pure legal mistakes)
- Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 560 U.S. 538 (explains that knowing a party’s existence does not preclude a cognizable mistake about that party’s role or identity under Rule 15(c))
- Levinson v. Jarrett ex rel. Cty. of Maricopa, 207 Ariz. 472 (discusses requirement that a cognizable mistake must be shown before assessing defendant’s knowledge)