WPC3 # VUNa % 0(UPw@- 4m  0l 0D 0J@ 0T 0^ 0h<  0r 0| 0 0 1u 0d%U>U6B)DC& AMiU* D3 B0 0@Av~=v AO 0D D/ BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular EDDӀU!3|x((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 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   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd-'C << G<  9p`(Arial++++'dxd d  !#d#$  ))   YYY FILED)X September23,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.)AppellateCourtClerk ("$      !#d#$   $       %%Rule10(b)oftherulesofthiscourtprovidesasfollows: 8 TheCourt,withtheconcurrenceofalljudgesparticipatinginthecase,mayaffirm,reverseormodifytheactionsofthetrialcourtbymemorandumopinionwhenaformalopinionwouldhavenoprecedentialvalue.Whenacaseisdecidedbymemorandumopinionitshallbedesignated MEMORANDUMOPINION,shallnotbepublished,andshallnotbecitedorreliedonforanyreasoninasubsequentunrelatedcase.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   BA Op Geneva  BA Op Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . $  P %ԛ75!XXdd7\RA'\  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEJENKINSDENTALARTS,INC.  )C/ANO.03A019606CV00184     )BRADLEYCOUNTYCIRCUITCOURTٜL(,';+'h|`  `Lߛ  PlaintiffAppellant, )       )       )       )v.       )       )       )       )ACECODENT,ZAHNDENTALCOMPANY, )INC.,andHENRYSCHEIN,INC.,  )       )  Defendants,   )       )       )and       )       )       )̜ACECODENTINCORPORATED   )       )HONORABLEEARLEG.MURPHY,  DefendantAppellee.  )JUDGEForAppellant      ForAppelleeRONALDHAYNES      DAVIDF.HENSLEYCleveland,Tennessee  Milligan,Barry,Hensleỳ    &Evans        Chattanooga,Tennessee@   MEMORANDUMOPINION %%XԜ .   כAPPEALDISMISSEDREMANDED          Susano,J.  Thiscasearoseoutofthesamefactsasthoseinthecaseof RichardC.CanadaandwifeSharonCanadav.AceϜCodent,etal .,C/ANo.03A019606CV00182.Theproceduralhistoryofthetwocasesisalsoidentical.Inthiscase,asinthe Canada case,theappellant,plaintiffbelow,arguesthatitsamendedcomplaintagainstAcecodentIncorporatedwasfiledwithintheapplicablestatuteoflimitationsundertherelationbackϜprovisionsofRule15.03,Tenn.R.Civ.P.,asamendedeffectiveJuly1,1995.Also,asinthe Canada case,theappelleehasfiledamotiontodismisstheappealpredicatedonthefailureoftheappellanttoserveacopyofitsnoticeofappealontheclerkofthiscourtasrequiredbyRule5(a),T.R.A.P.  Wehavethisdayfiledaformalopinioninthe Canada case.Ourfindings,holdings,andrulingsinthatcasewithrespecttotheissueraisedbythemotiontodismisstheappealapplywithequalforcetotheinstantcase.Accordingly,weconcludethatthisappealmustbedismissedbecauseofthefailureoftheappellanttofullycomplywiththeprovisionsofRule5(a),ϜT.R.A.P.  Aswedidinthe Canada case,weopttogofurtherandexaminethesubstantiveissueraisedbytheappellant,JenkinsDentalArts,Inc.  Thepartiestothisappealtreatedtheinstantcaseasifitwasidenticaltothe Canada case.Itisnot.Thereisonemajor,criticaldifferencebetweenthecases.  Canada wasapersonalinjurycase,governedbytheoneyearstatuteoflimitationsapplicabletosuchactions,e.g.ϜT.C.A.283104.Thecasebeforeusonthisappealisclearlynotapersonalinjurycasesubjecttotheoneyearstatuteoflimitations.ThecorporateplaintiffintheinstantactionseekstorecoverbusinesslossesallegedlysufferedbyitasaresultofϜallegedbreachesofexpresswarrantyandtheimpliedwarrantiesofmerchantabilityandfitnessforaparticularpurpose.Italsoallegesnegligenceandstrictliability.ItclaimsthatitslossesareduetoadefectiveproductmanufacturedbyAcecodentIncorporated.  Inthiscase,AcecodentIncorporatedwasbroughtintothisactionwhentheamendedcomplaintwasfiledonSeptember13,1995.Thatcomplaintwastimelyfiledastomost,ifnotall,ofthecausesofactionsetforthinthatpleading,withoutregardtoRule15.03,T.R.A.P.Simplystated,relianceonthatRuleisnotnecessarytoovercomethedefendantsmotiontodismissbasedonthestatuteoflimitations.Itistotallyirrelevantwhen,ashere,acomplaintisfiledwithintheapplicablestatuteoflimitations.  Thetrialjudgeerredwhenhedismissedtheplaintiffscomplaintbasedonthestatuteoflimitations.Clearlythiswasnothisfault.Whenthemotiontodismisswasarguedbeforehim,bothpartieserroneouslytreatedtheinstantcaseasifitwassubjecttotheoneyearstatuteoflimitations.  Werethisappealproperlybeforeus,wewouldhold,underRule36,T.R.A.P.,thatthejudgmentofthetrialcourtinthiscaseiserroneous,vacatesame,andremandthiscaseforfurtherproceedings.However,inviewofourdecisionastotheRule5(a)issue,wemustdismissthisappeal.  Theappealinthiscaseisherebydismissed.Costsoftheappealaretaxedtotheappellant.Thiscaseisremandedforthecollectionofcostsassessedbelow,pursuanttoapplicablelaw.      _________________________________      CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.CONCUR:_____________________________HoustonM.Goddard,J._____________________________DonT.McMurray,J.