Patterson v. Consolidated Aluminum Corp.
101 So. 3d 743
| Ala. | 2012Background
- Dawn Patterson diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma on September 11, 2008.
- Dawn and Brooks Patterson filed suit on August 13, 2009 for asbestos exposure.
- claim centered on secondary exposure from Dawn's father and grandfather, not direct home/work exposure.
- Defendants named included Phelps-Dodge and Nichols Wire; later discovery led to CAC and Lonza as potentially liable.
- CAC and Lonza moved to dismiss as time-barred under Alabama’s two-year limitation after accrual.
- Court treated motion as summary judgment and ultimately affirmed dismissal for lack of timely substitution under Rule 9(h)/15(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether relation-back applies to substitute CAC/Lonza for fictitious parties | Pattersons acted with due diligence; discovery identified CAC/Lonza. | Pattersons failed to amend promptly after discovery identified true parties. | Relation-back denied; substitution barred; claims time-barred. |
| Whether due diligence standard was satisfied to permit substitution | Discovery revealed potential liability; timely amendment after discovery. | Delay after discovery identifying CAC/Lonza shows lack of due diligence. | Not satisfied; due diligence not shown. |
| Whether accrual date and Rule 6-2-38 deadline expired before substitution | Accrual date 9/11/2008; amendment in 2011 timely under relation-back. | Deadline expired before proper substitution; no relation-back. | Statute of limitations barred substitution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Griffin, 4 So.3d 430 (Ala.2008) (relation-back requires due diligence and timely amendment)
- West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870 (Ala.1989) (due-diligence standard for substitution)
- Hensel Phelps Constr. Co., 7 So.3d 999 (Ala.2008) (illustrates failure to amend timely after identity known)
- Sherrin v. Bose, 608 So.2d 364 (Ala.1992) (affirming statute-of-limitations result where delay occurred)
- Davis v. Mims, 510 So.2d 227 (Ala.1987) (due-diligence standard articulation)
- Columbia Eng’g Int’l Ltd. v. Espey, 429 So.2d 955 (Ala.1983) (due diligence in discovering fictitious party identity)