WPC:R # UN % 0 ( UP1 w@ 4  0l 0DP  0~ 0x 0k 0k 0h 0~ 0 0Q 05 0 0  0 01 0C+ 0Vn 0 D3 B 0 0@ 0 0k 0. 0 0 0~ 0! 0z 0> 1 0 ! 0=! 0FN! 0P! 1! 0w" 0C.# 0}q# 0x# 0f$ 0j$ 0e]% 0W% 0W& 0p& 0j& 0^' 0( 0( 0s) 0T* 0H+ 0O, 0-i- 0@. 0/ 00 01 01 0Z2 03 03 0h4 04 15n;6^6F7N7UB:E; 0J; 0T`; 0^; 0h< 0rz< 0|< 0h= 0= 1u~> 0d>U>W?U 6?B)?DC? AM7@U*@@A(WC AODDE 0DoF D/F BFF^HfrIIv~JvgLHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular EDӀDU!B3|x((3$ !      0  (-$  5  V& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..8  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ ++++'dxd dl2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. ("$    l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. R& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS 72/01,.34  1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S2/01,.34 CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fp2Doc InitInitialize Document Style9S =)"   I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S:;<($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0 )" A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)x?t2PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper _(2C$ !  p4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush LeftV4Heading 1Centered Heading@..  b* 8Bullet ListIndented Bullet List0..0` ..` B& $1Document Style0..8` ..` B $2Document Style.. . B $3Document Style8..B $4Document Style0..B-$5Document Style 23  Ԁ   B& $6Document Style0..0` ..` dS $7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..23  Ԁ..0..df $8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..` 23  Ԁ..0` ..` B=$9Document Style.. 23  Ԁ   fy &10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. 23  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. f &11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..23  Ԁ .. 0..f &12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h23  Ԁ..0h..hf &13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..23  Ԁh..h0..f &14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....23  Ԁ..0..f &15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..p23  Ԁ..0p..pDV!&16Document Style  @..  23  Ԁ     Ԉ X/&17Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&18Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X-(&19Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X*$&20Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ.  !#$%&'( CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMS z ?(  `&XXXXX6+a'*d66+a'*d6HH1HH2HH3HH4HH5HH6HH7HH8HH910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  fghijklm ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 dxxxx7Border 1dd-yC << G<  9p`(Arial  !#d#v  {{   YYY FILED{X September23,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.{AppellateCourtClerk   !#d#v   $       wwThefinaljudgmentinthiscaseastoAceCodentandAcecodentIncorporatedwasenteredpursuanttoRule54.02,Tenn.R.Civ.P.Thecaseisapparentlyproceedingatthetriallevelastotheotherdefendants.  !#d#v   $       wwTheplaintiffSharonCanadaisthewifeofRichardC.Canada;herclaimisforlossofconsortium.-C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 !#d#v   $       wwT.C.A.283104.($$   1  ' dxdP Pd  !#d#v   $       wwThetworequirementswerealsocarriedoverintothenewversionofRule15.03. T !#d#v   $       wwTheamendment tackedontothestatuteoflimitationsanadditional120dayswithinwhichtherequirementsforrelationbackcouldbesatisfied. \\RA'\  !#d#v  {{   YYY FILED{X September23,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.{AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   BA Op Geneva  BA Op Geneva ! . v  P wԛ7nXXdd7\RA'\  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEERICHARDC.CANADAandwife  )C/ANO.03A019606CV00182SHARONCANADA,     )BRADLEYCOUNTYCIRCUITCOURT       )  PlaintiffsAppellants, )ٜLz|y;+'h|`  `Lߛ       )       )       )v.       )       )       )       )ACECODENT,ZAHNDENTALCOMPANY, )INC.,andHENRYSCHEIN,INC.,  )       )  Defendants,   )       )       )and       )       )       )̜ACECODENTINCORPORATED,   )       )HONORABLEEARLEG.MURPHY,  DefendantAppellee.  )JUDGEForAppellants      ForAppelleeJIMMYW.BILBO      DAVIDF.HENSLEYLogan,Thompson,Miller,Bilbo,  Milligan,Barry,HensleỳThompson&Fisher,P.C.    &EvansCleveland,Tennessee    Chattanooga,Tennessee@   OPINION wwX̜APPEALDISMISSED̜REMANDED          Susano,J.  ThisproductsliabilityactionwasdismissedbythetrialcourtonmotionofAcecodentIncorporated. }   כTheplaintiffsϜappeal,presentingonenarrowissuethatraisesthefollowingquestion: 8 DidthetrialcourterrwhenitfoundthatRule15.03,Tenn.R.Civ.P.,asamendedeffectiveJuly1,1995,couldnotbegivenretrospectiveapplicationtoinsulatetheplaintiffscausesofactionfromAcecodentIncorporatedsdefenseofthestatuteoflimitations?AlsobeforeusisthemotionofAcecodentIncorporatedtodismissthisappeal.ThatmotionispredicatedonthefailureoftheappellantstoserveacopyoftheirnoticeofappealontheclerkofthiscourtasrequiredbyRule5(a),T.R.A.P.Wewillfirstconsiderthemotiontodismisstheappeal.@ I  Theappellantstimelyfiledanoticeofappealwiththeclerkofthetrialcourt.Theyalsotimelyservedacopyofthenoticeontheappellee,AcecodentIncorporated;however,theyfailedtoserveacopyofthenoticeontheclerkofthiscourtasrequiredbyRule5(a),T.R.A.P.,whichprovides,inpertinentpart,asfollows: 8 Notlaterthan7daysafterfilingnoticeofappeal,theappellantinacivilactionshallserveacopyofthenoticeofappeal...ontheclerkoftheappellatecourtdesignatedinthenoticeofappeal.  ItisclearthatanappellatecourthastheauthoritytosuspendRule5(a)asitpertainstotherequirementthatanappellantserveacopyofthenoticeofappealontheclerkoftheappellatecourt.ThatauthorityisfoundinRule2,T.R.A.P.: 8 Forgoodcause,includingtheinterestofexpeditingdecisionuponanymatter,theSupremeCourt,CourtofAppeals,orCourtofCriminalAppealsmaysuspendtherequirementsorprovisionsofanyoftheserulesinaparticularcaseonmotionofapartyoronitsmotionandmayorderproceedingsinaccordancewithitsdiscretion,exceptthatthisruleshallnotpermittheextensionoftimeforfilinganoticeofappealprescribedinrule4,anapplicationforpermissiontoappealprescribedinrule11,orapetitionforreviewprescribedinrule12.Seealso G.F.PlunkConst.Co.,Inc.v.BarrettProperties,Inc. ,640S.W.2d215,216(Tenn.1982);butitisabundantlyclearthatapreconditiontoawaiverunderRule2isashowingof goodcause.Id.at217.  Inthe G.F.Plunk case,theappellantfailedtoserveacopyofitsnoticeofappealontheclerkoftheCourtofAppeals.Italsofailedtoserveacopyonopposingcounsel.Theoperativefactsbeforethecourtin G.F.Plunk werestatedbytheSupremeCourtasfollows: 8 ItisundisputedthatneitheropposingcounselnortheclerkoftheCourtofAppealsreceivedacopyofappellantsnoticeofappeal.CounselforappellantcandidlyadmitsthatneitherhenorhissecretaryhasanindependentrecollectionofhavingmailedacopyofthenoticeofappealtoopposingcounselandtheclerkoftheCourtofAppeals,butneverthelessbelievesthatitwasdone.Id.at216.WhilerecognizingthatanappellatecourthastheauthorityunderRule2,T.R.A.P.,towaivetherequirementsofserviceofthenoticeofappealonopposingcounselandontheclerkoftheappellatecourt,theSupremeCourtin G.F.Plunk refusedtodosoandconsequentlyaffirmedthejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsdismissingtheappeal.Insoholding,theSupremeCourtopinedthata meregoodfaithbeliefthataroutineofficechorehasbeentimelyperformedwasinsufficienttoshow goodcause.Id.at218.  Intheinstantcase,theappellantshavetotallyfailedtopresenttousany cause,good,badorotherwise,fortheirfailuretoserveacopyoftheirnoticeofappealontheclerkofthiscourt.Intheabsenceofashowingofgoodcause,wedonotbelievethatwecanorshouldinvoketheprovisionsofRule2,toabsolveappellantsoftheirobligationtofullycomplywithRule5(a),T.R.A.P.  Thefactsoftheinstantcasearesubstantiallythesameasthosepresentedtousintherecentunreportedcaseof Cobbv.ϜBeier ,C/ANo.03A019602CV00051(Tenn.App.July3,1996,atKnoxville,Franks,J.)Weadheretoourdecisionin Cobb ;butwouldnote,inpassing,thatthelosingpartyinthatcasefiledanapplicationforpermissiontoappealwiththeSupremeCourtonAugust6,1996.Thatapplicationisstillpending.  Wefindthattheappelleesmotiontodismisstheappealiswelltakenandaccordinglydismissthisappeal.@ II  Werecognizethattheremaybefurtherappellatereviewinthiscase.Thispromptsustoexaminethesubstantiveissueadvancedbytheappellants.Sincethetrialcourtultimatelyconsideredalloftheaffidavitsfiledbytheparties,wewilltreattheactionofthetrialcourtasoneforsummaryjudgment.SeeRule12.02,Tenn.R.Civ.P.Weareobligedtoaffirmthetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgment ifthepleadings,depositions,answerstointerrogatories,andadmissionsonfile,togetherwiththeaffidavits,ifany,showthatthereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Rule56.03,Tenn.R.Civ.P.  TheoriginalcomplaintinthiscasewasfiledonMay19,1995.Init,theplaintiffs,nowappellants,allegedthattheplaintiffRichardC.Canada ~   כsufferedpersonalinjuriesonMay21,1994,asaresultofadefectiveproductmanufacturedanddistributedbyanumberofdefendants,oneofwhomisidentifiedintheoriginalcomplaintas AceCodent.Unbeknownsttotheplaintiffsatthattime,thefulllegalnameoftheentitysoughttobesuedinthiscaseisAcecodentIncorporated.  OnJuly26,1995,outsidetheapplicableperiodoflimitations,    ׀thesummonsandacopyoftheoriginalcomplaintwerereceivedatthecorporateofficesofAcecodentIncorporated.  OnSeptember1,1995,amotiontodismisswasfiledbelow,assertingthat AceCodentwasa nonentitywho doesnotlegallyexistanddoesnothavethecapacitytobesued.𛀀Inapparentresponsetothismotion,theplaintiffs,onSeptember13,1995,filedanamendedcomplaintto correct[]thenameofthedefendant,AceCodenttoAcecodentIncorporated.Thereafter,AcecodentIncorporatedfiledamotiontodismissbasedonthestatuteoflimitations.ItissupportedintherecordbytheaffidavitofJinHwang,oneoftheownersofAcecodentIncorporated.Inheraffidavit,Ms.HwangassertsthatpriortoJuly26,1995,thecompany hadnoknowledgeof...thefilingofalawsuitbyRichardandSharonCanada.  TheplaintiffsattemptedtocontroverttheHwangaffidavitbyfilingtheaffidavitoftheircounsel,JimmyW.Bilbo.Mr.BilbosaffidavitrecitesthathespokebytelephonewithawomanattheofficesofAcecodentIncorporatedonMay18,1995,withintheoneyearlimitationsperiod.Hestatesthathecalledtogetthecompanysnameandaddress.Hisaffidavitcontinues: 8 WhenIverifiedthenameofthedefendantoverthetelephonetotherepresentativeatthedefendantofficeinFlushing,NewYork,IspelledoutthenameAceCodentastwowords.Therepresentative/agentofthedefendantverifiedthatIhadthenamecorrect.Forthatreason,theactionwasfiledagainstAceCodentinsteadofAcecodentIncorporated.Mr.Bilbosaysthatthepersontowhomhespokeaskedhimwhyheneededtoverifythenameandaddress,andhe toldher[he]wasfilingalawsuitagainstthecompany.  Theappellantsconcedeintheirbriefthat [t]heamendedcomplaintwasfiledandservedafterthestatuteoflimitationshadrunonplaintiffsclaim.Theyargue,however,thatRule15.03,Tenn.R.Civ.P.,asamendedeffectiveJuly1,1995,appliestotheiramendedcomplaint(filedSeptember13,1995)sothatthefilingoftheamendedcomplaintrelatesbacktothedateoffilingoftheoriginalcomplaint,thussavingtheirclaimagainstAcecodentIncorporated.  Itisclear,andtheappellantsseemtoconcede,thatthewordingofRule15.03priortoJuly1,1995,precludesafindinginthiscasethattheamendedcomplaintwastimelyfiled.ThatversionoftheRuleprovided,inpertinentpart,asfollows: 8 Anamendmentchangingthepartyagainstwhomaclaimisassertedrelatesback...if,withintheperiodprovidedbylawforcommencingtheactionagainsthim,thepartytobebroughtinbyamendment(1)hasreceivedsuchnoticeoftheinstitutionoftheactionthathewillnotbeprejudicedinmaintaininghisdefenseonthemerits,and(2)kneworshouldhaveknownthat,butforamisnomerorothersimilarmistakeconcerningtheidentityoftheproperparty,theactionwouldhavebeenbroughtagainsthim.Exceptasabovespecified,nothinginthisruleshallbeconstruedtoextendanyperiodoflimitationsgoverningthetimeinwhichanyactionmaybebrought.(Emphasisadded).ThisversionoftheRulewasaddressedintheSupremeCourtcaseof Dukev.ReplogleEnterprises ,891S.W.2d205(Tenn.1994).In Duke ,aworkerscompensationactionwasfiledagainst ReplogleEnterprises,a/k/aReplogleSawmill.Infact,theactualemployerwasNathanReplogle,asoleproprietor,doingbusinessasReplogleEnterprises,ReplogleSawmill.TheoriginalcomplaintwasservedonNathanReplogleonFebruary4,1992,thethirddayfollowingtheexpirationoftheoneyearstatuteoflimitations.OnMarch10,1992,theplaintifffiledamotiontoamend toincludethenameofNathanReplogleasadefendant.Id.Theplaintifftherearguedthattheamendedcomplaintrelatedbacktothedateoffilingoftheoriginalcomplaint.Despitethestrikingsimilarityinnames,theSupremeCourtheldthatthesuitagainstMr.Reploglewastimebarred.Inaffirmingthetrialcourtsdismissaloftheplaintiffscauseofaction,theSupremeCourtpointedoutthat 8 [a]sRule15.03nowstands,hadtheserviceofprocessonNathanReploglebeenservedbeforetheexpirationofstatutorylimitations,theplaintiffsamendmenttoaddtheproperpartydefendantwouldhaverelatedbacktothedateoftheoriginalcomplaintandthecausewouldnothavebeentimebarred.Id.at207.(Emphasisin Duke opinion).  AsfarastheearlierversionofRule15.03isconcerned, Duke controlshere.ThefactthattheappellantscounseladvisedanagentofAcecodentIncorporated,withintheperiodoflimitations,thathe wasfilingalawsuitagainstthecompany,doesnotsatisfythelanguageofeitherversionofRule15.03.TheearlierversionoftheRuleprovidedan escapeclauseif,andonlyif,tworequirements    כweremetandthenonlyifthoserequirementsweremetduringtheapplicableperiodoflimitations.Aspertinenthere,itwasincumbentupontheappellantstoshowthatAcecodentIncorporatedhad receivedsuchnoticeoftheinstitutionoftheactionthathewillnotbeprejudicedinmaintaininghisdefenseonthemerits,beforethelimitationsperiodexpired.Rule15.03,Tenn.R.Civ.P.,beforetheJuly1,1995,amendment.(Emphasisadded).Thisisnotthesameasshowingthedefendantknewthattheplaintiffsintendedtofilesuit.  TheappellantsseemtorecognizethattheearlierversionofRule15.03isofnohelptothembecausetheyarguethatRule15.03,asamendedeffectiveJuly1,1995,appliestoanamendedcomplaintfiledafterthatdate.Underthefactsofthiscase,wedonotagreewiththeappellantscontention.  ItistruethatRule15.03wasamended    כeffectiveJuly1,1995,toavoid,atleastduringanexpandedtimeframe,whattheAdvisoryCommissionreferredtoasthe unfortunateresultofthosecaseswhere,becauseofamisnomer,thecorrectdefendantisnotrequiredtodefendonthemerits.ItislikewisetruethatiftheRuleasamendedeffectiveJuly1,1995,appliestotheamendedcomplaint,itservesto savetheappellantscauseofactionϜfromAcecodentIncorporatedsdefenseofthestatuteoflimitationsbecausetheamendedcomplaintwasservedwithin120daysoftheexpirationofthestatuteoflimitations.  Significantly,thestatuteoflimitationsastotheappellantsclaimsagainstAcecodentIncorporatedexpiredpriortotheeffectivedateoftheamendmenttoRule15.03.Aspreviouslyindicated,theappellantsconcedethisintheirbrief.  Onceastatuteoflimitationsbarsaclaimunderthenexistinglaw,itcannotberevivedbysubsequentlyenactedlegislation. Girdnerv.Stephens ,48Tenn.280,286(Tenn.1870).ThispropositionfindsaconstitutionalbasisinArticleI,Section20,oftheTennesseeConstitution: 8 ...noretrospectivelaw,orlawimpairingtheobligationsofcontracts,shallbemade.TheSupremeCourthasstatedthat retrospectivelawsare 8 generallydefined,fromalegalstandpoint,asthosewhichtakeawayorimpairvestedrightsacquiredunderexistinglawsorcreateanewobligation,imposeanewduty,orattachanewdisabilityinrespectoftransactionsorconsiderationsalreadypassed. Morrisv.Gross ,572S.W.2d902,907(Tenn.1978).  Inthe Girdner case,theSupremeCourtsetforththecontrollingpropositionintheinstantcase: 8 IthaslongbeenthelawinTennesseethatwhenacauseofactionisbarredbyastatuteoflimitation,inforceatthetimetherighttosuearose,anduntilthetimeoflimitationexpired,thattherighttorelyuponthestatuteasadefenseisavestedrightthatcannotbedisturbedbysubsequentlegislation. Girdner ,48Tenn.at286.Seealso Hendersonv.Ford ,488S.W.2d720,722(Tenn.1972); Collierv.MemphisLight,Gas&WaterDiv .,657S.W.2d771,775(Tenn.App.1983); Morfordv.ϜYongKyunCho ,732S.W.2d617,620(Tenn.App.1987); Bucknerv.GAFCorp .,495F.Supp.351,353(E.D.Tenn.1979).  TheappellantsarecorrectthattheJuly1,1995,amendmenttoRule15.03is remedialorproceduralinnature.Cf. Keev.ShelterInsurance ,852S.W.2d226,228(Tenn.1993).Generally, [s]uchstatutesapplyretrospectively,notonlytocausesofactionarisingbeforesuchactsbecomelaw,butalsotoallsuitspendingwhenthelegislationtakeseffect,unlessthelegislatureindicatesacontraryintentionorimmediateapplicationwouldproduceanunjustresult.Id.Seealso Saylorsv.Riggsbee ,544S.W.2d609,610(Tenn.1976).However,thispropositionissubjecttostillanotherexceptionthatiscriticalinthiscase: 8 ...retrospectiveapplicationofaremedialorproceduralstatuteisconstitutionallyforbiddenifittakesawayavestedrightorimpairscontractualobligations. Kee ,852S.W.2dat228.(Emphasisadded).  WhentheoneyearanniversaryoftheappellantscausesofactionpassedintohistorywithoutasuitbeingfiledspecificallynamingAcecodentIncorporatedasadefendant,thatentityacquiredavestedrightinthedefenseoftheapplicableoneyearstatuteoflimitation.ItcannotthereafterbeconstitutionallydeprivedofthatvestedrightbytheamendmenttoRule15.03.  Therearenodisputedmaterialfactsinthiscase.Thefactsbeforeusshowthattheappellee,AcecodentIncorporated,isentitledtosummaryjudgment.Thetrialcourtwascorrectingrantingsame.Assuming,forthepurposeofargument,thatthisappealisproperlybeforeus,wefindandholdthattheappellantssingleissueonappealiswithoutmerit.  Theappealinthiscaseisherebydismissed.Costsoftheappealaretaxedtotheappellants.Thiscaseisremandedforthecollectionofcostsassessedbelow,pursuanttoapplicablelaw.      _________________________________      CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.̜CONCUR:_____________________________HoustonM.Goddard,J._____________________________DonT.McMurray,J.  7``XXdXXd7 , 5  x u`  ` @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE̜Jz;+'b|`  `@Jߛ@ EASTERNSECTIONRICHARDC.CANADAandwife@ ) @ ) ̜SHARONCANADA @ )̜@ )̛ PlaintiffsAppellants@ )@ ) @ )  v.@ )  @ )@ )ACECODENT,ZAHNDENTALCOMPANY,@ ) BRADLEYCOUNTYINC.,andHENRYSCHEIN,INC.@ ) 03A019606CV00182  @ )@ ) ̜ Defendants@ )@ )@ ) and@ )@ )@ )ACECODENTINCORPORATED@ )@ ) DefendantAppellee@ )̜    CONCURRINGOPINION  AlthoughIdissentedinthecaseofCobbv.Brier,citedinthemajorityopinion,whichwasthefirsttime,tomyknowledge,thatthisCourthaddismissedanappealforfailuretofileacopyofthenoticeofappealwiththeAppellateCourtClerk,IrecognizethatCobb,unlessoverturnedbytheLegislatureortheSupremeCourt,isthesettledlawastothequestion.  Ialsoconcurinthemajority'streatmentofthemeritsoftheappeal.      _______________________________      HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.