ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µÝw@å4% 9 BH Š U:’ 0JÌ 0T 0^j 0hÈ 0r0 0|¢ 0† 0¤ 1u4 U,© 0dÕ U,9U>e B£U*ÀB)êDC AMV D3£Öv~Ù 0@WvÓ— AOjƹ 0D D/à Bò˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ D{DUD U Ó€z!é XXFdÈ3|xC:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPTÂ"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ%%%%'ÿÿdxd ùÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òSeptember€12,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€##X„d&ÓÑ#€##Xd#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÔ€&ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€vXXdìdÈ7Ñ›à@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÌà àÌDONALD€AND€MELISSA€RUSSELL,à à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiffs/Appellees,à àò ò)€€Shelby€Circuit€No.€62929€T.D.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9504„CV„00095̜ـ€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€)+(;+'h| ` Å `€€Lß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌROBERT€SCOTT€GILES,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendant/Appellant.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OFÏSHELBY€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€DððARMY€BAILEY,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òJ.€HAROLD€NICHOLSÌSPICER,€FLYNN€&€RUDSTROMÌó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantÌÌò òRUSSELL€J.€JOHNSONÌó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppelleesÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òREVERSED€AND€RENDEREDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌó óà àœÌÓÓà àThis›€interlocutory€appeal€involves€a€suit€to€recover€damages€for€personal€injuryÏand€Ñ7€ ‚ XXdæXXdì7Ñproperty€damage€arising€out€of€an€automobile€accident.€€Defendant,€Robert€ScottÏGiles,€appeals€from€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€motion€for€summary€judgment.ÌÌà àThe€automobile€accident€in€question€occurred€on€July€8,€1993,€when€defendant,ÏRobert€Scott€Giles,€allegedly€rear„ended€plaintiffsðð€vehicle.€€œPlaintiffs›€filed€theirÏcomplaint€on€July€8,€1994,€naming€Robertððs€father,€Kenneth€R.€Giles,€as€the€onlyÏdefendant.€€Kenneth€was€not€involved€in€the€accident,€and€did€not€own€or€exerciseÏcontrol€over€the€vehicle.€œAfter›€Kenneth€was€served€on€July€15,€1994,€he€called€RobertÏto€inform€him€that€suit€had€been€filed.€ÌÌà àConversely,€plaintiffs€subsequently€moved€to€amend€their€complaint€in€order€toÏsubstitute€Robert€as€defendant,€which€was€granted€by€the€trial€court.€€Robert€filed€aÏmotion€for€summary€judgment€on€statute€of€limitations€grounds,€arguing€that€he€had€noÏknowledge€of€the€institution€of€the€suit€until€more€than€a€year€from€the€date€of€theÏœaccident.›€The€trial€court€denied€said€motion,€and€this€appeal€followed.€ÌÌà àRobert€argues€on€appeal€that€the€one„year€statute€of€limitations€bars€plaintiffsððÏclaims€because€he€was€not€named€as€a€defendant€when€the€suit€was€filed€andÏbecause€he€had€no€notice€that€suit€had€been€filed€until€after€the€statute€of€limitationsÏhad€run.€€Plaintiffs€argue€that€Robertððs€insurance€company,€Allstate,€had€notice€of€theÏsuit,€which€€was€sufficient€to€impute€notice€to€Robert€because€Allstate€was€RobertððsÏagent.€€Plaintiffs€further€argue€that€Allstate€misrepresented€certain€facts€to€plaintiffs;Ïtherefore,€Robert€should€be€estopped€to€assert€the€statute€of€limitations€as€a€defense.€ÏFinally,€plaintiffs€argue€that€the€timely€filing€of€the€complaint€tolled€the€statute€ofÏlimitations.̛̜à àTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03,€œas€it€existed€prior€to€July€1,€1995,€which›€governs€relationÏback€of€amendments,€œprovides:Ì›ÓÓà8 àà8 àWhenever€the€claim€or€defense€asserted€in€the€amendedÏpleadings€arose€out€of€the€conduct,€transaction€orÏoccurrence€set€forth€or€attempted€to€be€set€forth€in€theÏoriginal€pleading,€the€amendment€relates€back€to€the€dateÏof€the€original€pleading.€€An€amendment€changing€the€partyÏagainst€whom€the€claim€is€asserted€relates€back€if€theÏforegoing€provision€is€satisfied€and€if,€within€the€periodÏprovided€by€law€for€commencing€the€action€against€him,€theÏparty€to€be€brought€in€by€amendment€(1)€has€received€suchÏnotice€of€the€institution€of€the€action€that€he€will€not€beÏprejudiced€in€maintaining€his€defense€on€the€merits,€and€(2)Ïknew€or€should€have€known€that,€but€for€a€misnomer€orÏother€similar€mistake€concerning€the€identity€of€the€properÏparty,€the€action€would€have€been€brought€against€him.€ÏExcept€as€above€specified,€nothing€in€this€rule€shall€beÏconstrued€to€extend€any€period€of€limitations€governing€theÏtime€in€which€any€action€may€be€brought.ÌÌTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03.ÌÓÓÌà àThe€advisory€commission€comments€to€Rule€15.03€explain:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àUnder€Rule€15.03,€an€amendment€changing€the€partyÏagainst€whom€a€claim€is€asserted€will€relate€back€to€the€dateÏof€the€original€pleading€and€thus€avoid€the€bar€of€any€statuteÏof€limitations€if,€and€only€if,€the€party€brought€in€byÏamendment€receives€notice,€before€the€statute€has€run,€thatÏthe€suit€has€been€brought€and€that€he€knows€or€should€haveÏknown€that€but€for€misnomer€or€similar€mistake€the€suitÏwould€have€been€brought€against€him.€€The€rule€does€not,Ïtherefore,€raise€any€possibility€that€a€person€who€has€hadÏno€reason€to€know€that€he€is€expected€to€respond€to€a€claimÏwill€be€brought€into€a€suit€after€the€applicable€statute€ofÏlimitations€has€run.ÌÓÓÌà àAccordingly,€in€order€for€the€relation€back€provision€to€apply,€it€is€critical€that€theÏdefendant€sought€to€be€charged€must€have€notice€of€the€filing€of€the€lawsuit€within€theÏprescribed€statutory€period.€€In€the€present€case,€plaintiffs€filed€their€suit€one€year€to€theÏday€following€their€accident.€€However,€plaintiffs€failed€to€sue€the€proper€defendant.€€ItÏis€uncontroverted€that€Robert€did€not€have€notice€of€the€filing€of€the€lawsuit€until€hisÏfather€was€served€with€process€one€week€after€the€one„year€statutory€period€hadÏexpired.ÌÌà àPlaintiffs€argue€that€Allstate€was€Robertððs€authorized€agent,€with€authority€toÏnegotiate€the€claim€on€Robertððs€behalf.€œAccording›€to€plaintiffs,€the€fact€that€AllstateÏnegotiated€with€plaintiffs€regarding€their€claim€and€the€fact€that€Allstate€knew€that€aÏlawsuit€would€be€filed€operated€to€impute€the€same€knowledge€to€Robert€because€anÏagentððs€knowledge€is€generally€imputed€to€his€or€her€principal.€ÌÌà àDefendant€responds€that€under€Tennessee€law,€neither€an€insurance€companyÏnor€its€employees€are€agents€of€the€insured.€€œòòSmith›€v.€Southeastern€Properties,€Ltd.óó,Ï776€S.W.2d€106€(Tenn.€App.€1989);€òòRickman€v.€Hillardóó,€No.€02A01„9103„CV„00019,Ï1992€WL€12126€(Tenn.€App.€Jan.€29,€1992).ÌÌà àIn€òòSmithóó,€this€court€expressly€rejected€the€plaintiffððs€contention€that€theÏinsurance€companyððs€knowledge€of€the€institution€of€the€suit€operated€to€impute€suchÏknowledge€to€the€defendant.€€òòId.óó€at€110.€€The€court€stated,€ð ð[N]either€an€insuranceÏcompany€nor€persons€employed€by€it€are€agents€of€the€insured.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Pursuant€to€RuleÏ15.03,€ð ðthe€notice€must€be€received€during€the€statutory€period€by€the€party€sought€toÏbe€charged.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€109.ÌÌà àSimilarly,€in€òòRickmanóó,€No.€02A01„9103„CV„00019,€1992€WL€12126,€at€*2,€theÏcourt€rejected€plaintiffððs€assertion€that€the€insurance€agentððs€knowledge€of€the€suit€wasÏsufficient€to€satisfy€the€notice€requirement€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03.òòÌÌà àóóIn€accordance€with€the€foregoing€authorities,€we€hold€that€the€insurance€agentððsÏnotice€of€the€institution€of€the€suit€was€not€imputed€to€the€defendant.ÌÌà àPlaintiffs€next€contend€that€Robert€should€be€equitably€estopped€from€assertingÏthe€statute€of€limitations€as€a€defense€because€Allstate€allegedly€misled€plaintiffs€intoÏbelieving€that€the€claim€would€be€settled€and€allegedly€provided€the€incorrect€name€ofÏthe€proper€defendant.€€In€support€of€their€position,€plaintiffs€rely€upon€the€case€ofÍòòIngram€v.€Elledgeóó,€No.€01„A„019101„CV„00009,€1991€WL€83349€(Tenn.€App.€May€22,Ï1991).ÌÌà àWe€find€that€òòIngramóó€is€distinguishable€from€the€present€case€because€in€òòIngramóó,Ïthere€was€evidence€in€the€record€that€the€insurance€agent€and€the€plaintiff€agreed€toÏforebear€filing€suit€until€they€were€able€to€fully€discuss€settlement.€€òòId.óó€at€*1.€€We€haveÏno€evidence€before€us€suggesting€that€Allstate€or€its€agents€lulled€the€plaintiffs€intoÏinaction€through€misrepresentation€or€supplying€false€information.€€Even€if€suchÏevidence€were€present€in€this€case,€however,€it€is€our€opinion€that€the€actions€orÏinactions€of€the€insurance€company€should€not€be€imputed€to€the€defendant,€as€theÏinsurance€company€is€not€the€defendantððs€agent.ÌÌà à€This€is€simply€not€a€case€where€plaintiffs€were€misled€into€believing€that€theyÏdid€not€have€a€responsibility€to€file€suit€within€a€year.€€In€fact,€plaintiffs€filed€theirÏcomplaint€in€a€timely€manner,€but€made€an€unfortunate€error€with€respect€to€the€properÏparty€defendant.€€€Furthermore,€as€this€court€recently€stated€in€òòGrashot€v.€Lawsonóó,€No.Ï02A01„9409„CV„00222,€1995€WL€746632€(Tenn.€App.€Dec.€14,€1995),€ð ðOne€of€theÏessential€elements€of€equitable€estoppel€as€related€to€the€party€claiming€estoppel€isÏthe€lack€of€knowledge€or€means€of€knowledge€of€the€truth€of€the€facts€in€question.ðð€€€òòId.óóÏAt€*2.€€The€plaintiffs€could€have€determined€the€proper€party€defendant€had€theyÏexercised€reasonable€diligence.€€We€therefore€decline€to€apply€the€principles€ofÏequitable€estoppel€to€the€case€at€bar.ÌÌà à€€Plaintiffsðð€final€contention€is€that€the€timely€filing€of€their€complaint€tolled€theÏstatute€of€limitations.€€We€find€that€plaintiffsðð€reliance€upon€the€case€of€òòHine€v.ÏCommercial€Carriers,€Inc.óó,€802€S.W.2d€218€(Tenn.€1990),€is€misplaced.€€€In€òòHineóó,€theÏplaintiff€timely€filed€his€complaint,€but€did€not€cause€summons€to€be€issued€until€threeÏmonths€after€the€complaint€was€filed.€€òòId.óó€at€218.€€Thus,€the€issue€with€which€the€CourtÏwas€presented€was€ð ðwhether€a€cause€of€action€is€barred€when€the€complaint€is€filedÏwithin€the€time€prescribed€by€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations,€but€the€summons€isÏnot€issued€until€after€the€statute€of€limitations€has€expired.ðð€€òòId.óó€€The€Court€ultimatelyÏheld€that€the€statute€is€tolled€by€the€timely€filing€of€the€complaint,€and€that€summonsÏmust€simply€be€issued€within€a€reasonable€time€thereafter.€€òòId.óó€at€220.ÌÌà àòòHineóó€is€inapposite€to€the€present€case€because€in€òòHineóó,€the€complaint€was€fliedÏin€a€timely€manner€naming€the€correct€parties€as€defendants.€€In€contrast,€plaintiffs€filedÏsuit€against€the€incorrect€defendant.€€Accordingly,€we€hold€that€the€filing€of€the€originalÏcomplaint€did€not€operate€to€toll€the€statute€of€limitations.ÌÌà àœÌÌÌÌà àThe›€judgment€of€the€trial€court€denying€defendantððs€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment€is€hereby€reversed.€œ€Summary€judgment€is€rendered€for€defendant.›€Costs€onÏappeal€are€taxed€to€œplaintiffs.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌFARMER,€J.›