Williams v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc.
251 N.C. App. 712
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On 30 Oct 2012 plaintiff Harry Williams fell in an Advance Auto Parts retail store in Cumberland County, NC and later submitted a claim to Sedgwick, the store’s third-party claims administrator, which referenced "Advance Auto" or "Advance Auto Parts."
- Plaintiff sued on 26 Oct 2015 (within three years of the incident) naming Advance Auto Parts, Inc. as defendant; on 21 Dec 2015 (after the limitations period) he amended to add Advance Stores Company, Inc. as a defendant.
- Defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment; both submitted evidence (affidavit of Pamela Webster, deed from Cumberland County Register of Deeds, Parts’ certificate application) showing Advance Stores Company, Inc. (Stores) owned/operated the store and Advance Auto Parts, Inc. (Parts) is a separate holding company.
- Plaintiff submitted counsel’s affidavit showing reliance on the Sedgwick letter and Secretary-of-State/website searches that led him to name Parts initially, but offered no evidence disputing corporate ownership or control.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to Stores (amendment adding Stores was barred by statute of limitations and did not relate back) and to Parts (Parts did not own/control the premises; no basis to pierce the corporate veil).
- Plaintiff appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed both grants of summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Dec. 2015 amendment adding Stores relates back to the original Oct. 2015 complaint under Rule 15(c) so as to avoid the statute of limitations bar | Amendment was a correction of a misnomer and thus should relate back | The amendment substituted a different legal entity (new defendant); Rule 15(c) does not permit relation back to add a new party after limitations expired | Amendment did not relate back; adding Stores was an impermissible new defendant and barred by the statute of limitations |
| Whether equitable estoppel prevents Stores from asserting the statute of limitations because Sedgwick misled plaintiff about the defendant’s identity | Sedgwick’s letter naming "Advance Auto" misled plaintiff into suing Parts; Stores should be estopped from asserting the limitations defense | Sedgwick’s letter did not make a false representation that Stores intended plaintiff to rely on; plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence (title search) | Equitable estoppel not available; plaintiff failed to show misrepresentation, intent, knowledge, or due diligence |
| Whether Parts can be held liable as owner/operator or under alter-ego/corporate veil theories | Plaintiff argued Parts was responsible for the store where he fell (implied control/ownership) | Parts presented evidence it is a separate holding corporation and did not own, lease, operate, or control the store; no evidence to pierce corporate veil | Summary judgment for Parts: Parts did not own/control the premises and there was no basis to pierce the corporate veil |
| Whether plaintiff’s process/service or naming errors could be corrected under Rule 4(i) or treated as mere misnomer | Plaintiff relied on process/service confusion and argued amendment was technical misnomer correctable after limitations | Defendants showed distinct corporate entities and that substitution was not merely a name correction of one entity with multiple names | Court treated error as substitution of a different entity, not a misnomer; correction not permitted after limitations expired |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanback v. Stanback, 297 N.C. 181 (discussing conversion of 12(b)(6) to Rule 56 when matters outside the pleadings are considered)
- Frank v. Funkhouser, 169 N.C. App. 108 (methods by which a defendant may obtain summary judgment)
- Crossman v. Moore, 341 N.C. 185 (Rule 15(c) does not authorize relation back to add a new party)
- Callicut v. American Honda Motor Co., 37 N.C. App. 210 (substitution of parties that creates a new cause of action cannot be permitted when statute of limitations has run)
- Franklin v. Winn Dixie Raleigh, 117 N.C. App. 28 (distinguishing misnomer corrections from substitution of distinct legal entities)
- Harris v. Maready, 311 N.C. 536 (trial court discretion to amend process or proof of service unless material prejudice appears; misnomer doctrine)
- Pierce v. Johnson, 154 N.C. App. 34 (misnomer correction allowed only when single entity has multiple names and proper service occurred)
- Liss v. Seamark Foods, 147 N.C. App. 281 (technical nature of misnomer; distinction from substituting a new defendant)
- Piland v. Hertford County Bd. of Comm’rs, 141 N.C. App. 293 (adding a party after limitations expired is not cured by notice to the added party)
- Bailey v. Handee Hugo’s, Inc., 173 N.C. App. 723 (plaintiff’s duty to exercise due diligence, including title search, when bringing suit)