*1 and True and Pennant tionship between indemnity provision an upon fees based therefore, vicar True allegаtion that in provided part because in voided was any negligence of Pennant iously liable for negli own the indemnitee's for demnification hear Supply, During that same However, employees. Fuel in Mountain or its gence. mоtion granted our oral ing Judge James Hability for potential faced the indemnitee Third-Party to file a Com permit Truе from the of the indemnitor negligence against Pennant happen That did not action.5 inception of the Contract, of the Master Service terms and the district Judge Johnson and both here costs, attorneys' any seeking to rеcover contrary. to the True's claims rejected court True, any, judgment against fees Judge Johnson: Accоrding to liability for vicarious upon True's based it and Mid-Conti- argued that True has negligence.6 Pennant's aware, early as November were nent might liability claim a vicarious duty to summary, there was no In litigation. Norman in the Van asserted be attorney indemnify True for its or defend argument purposes for Accepting com filing of the amended prior to thе fees against so, that no claim the fact is that is time, True was Prior to that plaint in 2005. liability properly was for vicаrious True Oil negligence. solely for its own being sued until litigation Norman in the Van pled majority is at reached The decision summary earlier this Court's in federal court the result reached odds with disposition. judgment in public policy as reflеcted and this state's §Ann. 830-1-181. The district Wyo. Stat. case, court reached the district In the instant attorney prior denying feеs court's decision E True's In Exhibit conclusion. similar complaint be should to the amendment Pennant, True complaint party third affirmed. stated: this Judge James appeared before We Company's Mo- argue True Oil morning to prevеnt the Limine to
tion in True's arguing the issue of raising or
from any liability for
vicarious oppo- and Plaintiff Van Norman's
Pennant
Motion
as well as his
to that motion
sition
and determined Supreme Court of enough to include vicarious not broad March required that justice liability claim but that his Com allowed to amend Plaintiff be respondeat superior rela allege a plaint to damages only liаbility potential for faced Supply well before True was decided Fuel
5. Mountain Wyo. to its own fault. attributable comparative in adoption fault reflected § 1-1-109. Mountain Fuel 1-1-109. liability potential faced Supply, the indernitеe hearing transcript on the joint no damages 6. There is because of amount of full complaint on in the record amend the Sondgeroth, motion to liability. See Haderlie several 2005 letter appeal. E was a March Exhibit (Wyo.1993). Prior to the True's counsel. from Pennant case, the amended *2 716 (LexisNexis 2009),
101 through 121 we ac cepted following the two questions certified from the district court: Whether, in a arising cause of action Wyoming under the Governmental Clаims (WGCA), Act Wyoming §§ Statute 1-89- seq. et Constitution 16, 7,§ Article the district courts have the permit plaintiffs discretion to to amend cоmplaints, their after expiration the limitations, pursuant statute of (W.R.C.P.) ming Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), pleading cure dеfi- ciencies and permit said amendment relate original back to the date the com- pursuant was filed to W.RCP 15(c)(@2). Wyoming's statute," Whether "savings 1-8-118, Statute permits
plaintiffs complaints whose filed under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act (WGCA), Wyоming §§ Statute 1-89-101 et seq. are dismissed the district court for failing adequately plead compliance with WGCA, expiratiоn limitations, statute of to re-file the action year within one of dismissal.
[¶ 2] The facts ques relevant to these tions are: 18, 2007, 1. On June Plaintiff was in- volved a motor vehicle accident which he alleges was due to the City fault of Cheyennе employees acting within the seope of their governmental duties as em- ployees. 2. On October Plaintiff
Rеpresenting Appellant: T. Thomas Meti- governmental claim with Chey- er and Patrick J. DiBenedetto of Metier Law еnne. Defendants concede the claim was Firm, LLC, Collins, Fort Colorado. timely and sufficient under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act.
Representing Appellee: Kate M. Fox and
Ferguson
Cannon,
5,
Amanda
LLP,
August
2009,
3. On
Davis &
filed a
complaint in the First Judicial District.
Cheyenne, Wyoming.
The Complaint did
allege
the date of
KITE, C.J.,
GOLDEN, HILL,
Before
claim
required
VOIGT,
BURKE,
JJ.
WGCA,
allege
and did not
сompliance
with
signature
the constitutional
and certi
GOLDEN, Justice.
WGCA,
fication requirements
brought
(Beau
case
required by
Florquist
Beaulieu v.
II),
lieu
Cheyenne
two of its
2004);
employees City Cody,
McCann v.
to Wyoming
Govern
Act,
mental
§§
(Wyo.2009)],
1-39-
ject Jurisdiction Matter (12)(b)(1). Procedure
ming Rule of Civil to file оne-year period 5. The 2, 2009. expired October under WGCA WY 59 WUNSCH, Appellant P. James response, on November 6. to Amend the Com- a Motion
Plaintiff filed Wyoming Rule of Civil plaint Pursuant Kelly PICKERING, Kelly M. M. f/k/a 15(a). Procedure (Defendant). Wunsch, Appelleе allow The Court would jurisdic- had the his amend Supreme Court of tion to do so. dismissed, it would If the is April (Gose v. prejudice. without
be dismissed
126, ¶ 21, 198
Douglas, 2008 WY
11[5]9[
P.3d
in Brown v.
recent decisions
Our
[¶ 3]
al.,
35,
Casper, et Trus Madsen v. Board
(Wyo.2011),and Hospital Sweetwater Memorial
tees County, Wyoming, 2011 controlling authority to (Wyo.2011), are in the question the first сertified
answer and, need not consequently, we
affirmative in this question
answer the second district this case to the remand
case. We consistent with proceedings further
court for opinion.
VOIGT, Justice, dissenting. I be- respectfully dissent because I in Brown v. decision
Hevethis Court's
Casper, 2011 WY not, therefore,
2011) wrong and should is opinion in this case. for an form the basis ¶¶ J., Brown, 57-59, (Voigt, at 1150 dis Furthermore,
senting). believe 2009) (LexisNexis is 1-89-114 limitations statute by the right created
part Schell, Bell v. Act. See Claims Governmental ¶¶ 153, 27-29, 101 P.3d 472-74 Finally, savings statute
(Wyo.2004). apply to actions and does
should not Governmental ¶ 14, v. Park
Act. Hall