Day on Torts
A personal injury plaintiff was allowed to amend his complaint and assert a claim against a new defendant well after the statute of limitations ran when the original defendant had written consent to file a new answer, and that new answer included allegations against the new defendant.
In Johnson v. Airtight Resources Inc., No. M2023-01336-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2026) (memorandum opinion), the plaintiff filed a personal injury action against Airtight after he fell through a second floor garage door at his mother’s home. Airtight answered the complaint by alleging that an unknown defendant fraudulently obtained a permit to do the door work in its name.
In May 2021, well after the one-year statute of limitations had run, the parties held a case management conference. During that conference, an order was drafted indicating that Airtight intended to file an amended answer naming Phillip Taylor (“Taylor”) as a responsible party. Counsel for all parties signed this order, and soon thereafter the amended answer was filed. Within five days, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding Taylor as a defendant. Taylor filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Airtight did not have permission to file an amended pleading, and therefore the statutory grace period for adding a new party under Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119 was not triggered. The trial court agreed and granted dismissal, but the Court of Appeals reversed.
The Court of Appeals disagreed with Taylor’s argument that Airtight’s amended answer was deficient. The Court stated that Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 15.01 “takes a permissive approach to amendments,” but that it “gives little guidance as to the acceptable form of written consent.” The Court looked to interpretations of the federal rule on amendments, pointing out that “federal courts take a liberal view of what constitutes written consent.” Ultimately, the Court determined that the order signed by all parties stating that an amended answer would be filed constituted written consent. The Court explained:
Given Rule 15.01’s permissive approach to amendments in general and the interpretation of its federal counterpart, we conclude that the case management order was sufficient proof of the written consent of the adverse parties. Delayed entry of the order does not preclude its use as evidence of written consent. Despite the timing of its entry, it is still a writing, signed by counsel for all parties to the litigation, clearly showing consent for Airtight to file an amended answer naming Mr. Taylor as a responsible party. The litigants’ subsequent conduct only bolsters this conclusion. No one objected to the amendment. And the main adverse party, Mr. Johnson, expressly relied on the amended answer when he filed his second amended complaint.
(internal footnote omitted). Dismissal was therefore reversed.
Lawyers – please note that this is a memorandum opinion and thus has no precedential value.
This memorandum opinion was released fifteen months after oral arguments.