229 A.3d 56
R.I.2020Background
- Plaintiff Timothy Frazier slipped and fell at a Pizza Hut owned by Mita Enterprises on November 11, 2013.
- Frazier sued Mita on November 2, 2016; default was entered against Mita but later vacated and the case dismissed for insufficient service on August 4, 2017. Liberty Mutual had retained counsel who represented Mita in the first action.
- Frazier filed a second complaint against Mita on July 31, 2017; service was returned non est inventus, and Frazier sought to proceed directly against Liberty Mutual under G.L. § 27-7-2.
- Frazier amended his complaint on April 9, 2018 to name Liberty Mutual as defendant. Liberty Mutual moved to dismiss (converted to summary judgment) asserting the three-year statute of limitations barred the claim.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for Liberty Mutual; Frazier appealed. The Supreme Court vacated that judgment and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.I.\savings statute (§ 9-1-22) preserves Frazier\s claim against Liberty Mutual even though Liberty Mutual was not a named party in the original suit | § 9-1-22 applies because Liberty Mutual was not a mere stranger: it appeared via counsel for the insured and had a shared/identical interest with the insured; savings statute should be liberally applied | Luft controls: an insurer that was a stranger to the original action cannot benefit from the savings statute; plaintiff cannot tack a new defendant onto the saved action | Court held savings statute can apply where insurer is sufficiently linked to the original action; overruled Luft to that extent; vacated summary judgment and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Luft v. Factory Mut. Liability Ins. Co. of America, 51 R.I. 452, 155 A. 526 (1931) (held savings statute inapplicable to a defendant who was a "stranger" to the original action)
- Beilke v. Droz, 316 N.W.2d 912 (Iowa 1982) (persuasive authority holding insurer and insured share identical interests such that savings statute may apply)
- Hunt v. Century Indemnity Co., 58 R.I. 336, 192 A. 799 (1937) (describing effect of direct-action statute and insurer\s position vis-à-vis insured)
- Mockel v. Pawtucket Gas Co. of New Jersey, 48 R.I. 485, 139 A. 308 (1927) (illustrative of the Court\s prior usage of "stranger" to describe a new party not subject to the original suit)
- Rivers v. American Commerce Insurance Company, 836 A.2d 200 (R.I. 2003) (statute-of-limitations accrual principles for personal-injury claims)