ÿWPC °n¦¢[?] ß@)S· À¶}V¤]Ì>@»Ì›>÷Hœl8j˜QVÎû†î¸‚JÝÁÓÅ´ãQ+W:Š+ª&Æ{j—Þ0©¯/ÖÅ‚–2F9]WNqAzh„è á6„_f$e6×ulå@Úø}+É,A‚ñ¿q©hV›ebƒË{°1Ê"Œµ}Ì»‘2ê ÁnTÁP‘žEÙ=Œ9!;‘—òqümýï[*Îo–»Œ›æ*êŠÝ=e½Àáeœ©ß^TLíb8EìšB»G¤ [åù$“ê%ùÜÖSQ]sÖ‰|Be„dļy§¦5¼~?/²ˆ÷«ªDÚó';õø—ïËÌêIÜßÕêhIÊèíQ!†®†^Xsõ¥—ÙIÁ·æî=}‰Dè³u\Œ«ýdÔ?å,6Y0IÅÍöÇðŠ¯ GŒ·ì¹0 ÆÆŽ˜øÌðç})‚Î9GG-Ú€þÆ òÛ:z^ûøùc¬×ÞÄê”Hµ´#ÔõP(-P˜ C YŸ.z§3çnéE8@ZXßÀõ0™ ’B'/‘㬠i“m&­ùš.oï?OÉIÇgBbB=h‡@wà~?8ߌ$$ÂŒšÌXë›”ŸÝƱ®ÏO¾ŸÒ<b %\U@b 0ˆ¢UN*^ xw„4ˆ zœÒ è ÷ mù 0D ÆT Æ Æà Ʀ U@l N¬ š® #ÁHE                        b 0ë B 0¤# D3Ç D-ú 0K'' ASrÆÅ 0¤‹ 0D/ A«s»(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular[ˆì(L ˜L-(˜Cbk2p0¡ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÈhH  Z(Times New Roman  Ý ƒRå\$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€XöCX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Ô‡XöCXXXöCÔAt€the€time€the€plaintiff€filed€the€complaint,€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€3€required€issuance€ofÐ ° Ðsubsequent€summonses€within€six€months€of€prior€summonses€instead€of€the€one„year€period€nowÐ  ð Ðprovided€for€in€the€rule.˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0 - ù-(|G2å\$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€óœ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€XùûX»»Ô d(|3y*$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€óœ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3y*$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€óœ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€á$»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼á$»»»ÔÑ8€öCXXdð»»d8Ñà@¦ ¦ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@''%ìàAT€JACKSONˆÐ È ÐÔ‡XöCX»¼á$ÔÌò òÔ#†¼á$»XXöC`#ÔÓ  ÓTALMAGE€CRUMPòòóó€v.€KIMBERLY€BELLòòóóÔ‡XöCX»¼á$Ôó óÐ Ð  ÐÓ¦ÓÌà@# # ìàò òA€Direct€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Shelby€CountyˆÐ Ø ( Ðà@ñ ñ ìàNo.€85116„6€€€€€€The€Honorable€George€H.€Brown,€Jr.,€JudgeˆÐ È  ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<— ` A߈Ð ˜ è  ÐÌà@¢ ¢ ìàNo.€W1999„00673„COA„R3„CV€„€Decided€July€12,€2000€ˆÐ —ç  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<v` AßÐ wÇ  Ðó óÌÔ‡XñHXXXöCÔà  àThis€is€a€personal€injury€case.€€Plaintiff€filed€a€complaint€and€issued€summons,€which€wasÐ vÆ  Ðreturned€ð ðnot€to€be€found.ðð€€Plaintiff€issued€an€alias€summons€which€was€also€returned€ð ðnot€to€beÐ b²  Ðfound.ðð€€Plaintiff€issued€pluries€summons€more€than€one€year€after€the€return€of€the€alias€summons.€Ð Nž ÐThe€trial€court€dismissed€plaintiffððs€case€for€failure€to€comply€Rule€3,€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€€Plaintiff€assertsÐ :Š Ðthat€defendant€is€equitably€estopped€from€relying€upon€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€3,€because€of€action€ofÐ &v Ðdefendantððs€liability€insurance€carrier€leading€him€to€believe€that€the€defense€would€not€be€raisedÐ b Ðupon€which€he€relied€to€his€detriment.€€The€trial€court€found€no€estoppel,€and€plaintiff€has€appealed.Ô#†XöCXXXñH #ÔÔ#†¼á$»XXöCÜ#ÔÔ‡XöCX»¼á$ÔÐ þN ÐÌò òTenn.R.App.P.€3,€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óÐ Ú* ÐÌòòCrawford,€P.J.,€W.S.Ô#†¼á$»àXöC¸#ÔÔ‡XöCX.¼á$Ô,óó€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHighers,€J.,óó€and€òòLillard,€J.óó,Ð º  Ðjoined.Ð ªú ÐÌJames€T.€Allison,€Memphis,€For€AppellantÐ ŠÚ ÐÌCraig€Creighton€Conley,€Robert€L.€Moore,€Memphis,€For€AppelleeÐ jº ÐÌà@55'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼á$»XXöCŽ#ÔÔ‡XöCX»¼á$ԈРJ!š  ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼á$»XXöC #ÔÔ‡XöCX»¼á$ÔÔ‡XñHXXXöCÔà  àPlaintiff,€Ô_ÔTalmageÔ_Ô€Crump,€appeals€the€order€of€the€trial€court€dismissing€his€complaintÐ *#z" Ðagainst€defendant,€Kimberly€Bell.Ð $f# ÐÌà  àCrump€sustained€personal€injuries€in€an€automobile€accident€with€Bell€that€occurred€onÐ î%>!% ÐFebruary€14,€1996.€€Bell€carried€liability€insurance€with€State€Farm€Mutual€Insurance€Company.€€InÐ Ú&*"& ÐAugust,€1996,€Crump€retained€attorney€James€T.€Allison€to€represent€him€in€his€claim€for€personalÐ Æ'#' Ðinjuries,€and€by€letter€dated€August€12,€1996,€Allison€informed€Lynn€Jewel,€an€adjuster€for€StateÐ ²($( ÐFarm,€that€he€represented€Crump.€€Because€plaintiff€was€still€undergoing€treatment€in€the€fall€ofÐ ž)î$) Ð1996,€Allison€told€Jewel€that€he€needed€to€file€a€lawsuit€against€the€defendant€to€stop€the€statute€ofÐ Š*Ú%* Ðlimitations€from€running,€and€they€agreed€to€continue€to€negotiate€without€an€answer€being€filed.€Ð v+Æ&+ ÐSuit€was€filed€on€February€11,€1997,€and€the€summons€that€was€issued€on€that€same€date€wasÐ b,²', Ðreturned,€ð ðnot€to€be€foundðð€on€February€12,€1997.€€An€alias€summons€was€issued€on€July€10,€1997Ð N-ž(-ý Ðand€was€returned€ð ðnot€to€be€foundðð€on€July€23,€1997.€€Ð ° ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiff€was€still€having€difficulty€from€his€injury€in€April,€1997,€and€Allison€wroteÐ ˆØ ÐJewel€requesting€that€she€please€have€an€answer€filed€so€the€case€could€be€moving€toward€a€trial€date,Ð tÄ Ðif€necessary.€€Jewel€replied€to€Allison€that€she€had€not€heard€from€her€insured,€and€Allison€checkedÐ `° Ðwith€the€court€clerkððs€office€and€found€that€there€had€been€a€ð ðnot€to€be€found€returnðð€on€the€originalÐ L œ Ðsummons,€and€that€is€when€he€filed€the€alias€summons€on€July€12,€1997.€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àIn€September,€1997,€Eva€Myers,€another€State€Farm€adjuster,€wrote€Allison€to€inform€himÐ  ` Ðthat€the€case€had€been€assigned€to€her,€and€Allison€sent€plaintiffððs€current€medical€expenses€toÐ ü L  ÐMyers.€€On€December€4,€1997,€Allison€sent€Dr.€D.€J.€Canaleððs€report€to€Myers€and€advised€her€thatÐ è 8  Ðplaintiff€had€missed€time€from€work.€€The€medical€expenses€at€that€time€were€$3,631.00,€and€lostÐ Ô$  Ðwages€amounted€to€$1,664.00.€€On€behalf€of€the€plaintiff,€Allison€offered€to€settle€the€case€forÐ À  Ð$20,000.00,€and€Myers€advised€Allison€that€she€needed€the€physical€therapistððs€notes€to€properlyÐ ¬ü  Ðevaluate€the€claim.€€This€information€was€sent€to€her€on€December€10,€1997.€€Several€weeks€later,Ð ˜è  ÐMyers€offered€to€settle€the€case€for€$11,739.00.€€Plaintiff€declined€the€offer€and€made€a€counter„offerÐ „Ô  Ðof€$17,000.00.€€On€January€31,€1998,€State€Farm€indicated€that€it€was€willing€to€arbitrate€the€case,Ð pÀ Ðand€Allison€agreed€to€arbitration,€selecting€names€of€three€arbitrators€from€the€list€sent€to€him€byÐ \¬ ÐMyers.€€Nothing€was€heard€from€State€Farm€for€over€two€months,€and€when€Allison€called€MyersÐ H˜ Ðin€April,€1998,€she€said€the€file€had€been€assigned€to€another€adjuster,€Alex€Goeldner.€€Several€weeksÐ 4„ Ðlater,€Goeldner€advised€Allison€that€before€he€could€arbitrate€he€needed€the€orthopedic€doctorððsÐ  p Ðnotes.€€Those€notes€were€sent€to€Goeldner€by€Allison€on€May€21,€1998.€€On€June€30,€1998,€GoeldnerÐ  \ Ðwrote€Allison€stating€he€would€not€arbitrate€the€case,€because€he€thought€the€original€offer€to€settleÐ øH Ðfor€$11,739.00€was€adequate.€€Goeldner€stated€he€was€referring€the€case€to€attorney€Robert€MooreÐ ä4 Ðto€defend€the€lawsuit.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àBy€letter€dated€June€29,€1998,€Moore€wrote€Allison€that€he€would€be€defending€the€case€onÐ ¨ø Ðbehalf€of€Bell,€but€that€he€had€not€received€a€claim€file,€and€he€had€not€verified€service€of€process.€Ð ”ä ÐMoore€stated€that€he€would€file€a€responsive€pleading€but€requested€Allison€to€take€no€further€actionÐ €Ð Ðwithout€prior€notice€to€him.€€After€not€having€heard€further€from€Moore,€Allison€wrote€him€onÐ l¼ ÐAugust€20,€1998,€detailing€the€problems€he€had€had€with€three€different€adjusters€and€that€he€wantedÐ X ¨ Ðto€move€the€case€on€as€quickly€as€possible.€€On€September€2,€1998,€Moore€again€wrote€Allison€andÐ D!” Ðnotified€him€that€the€court€jacket€reflected€that€the€defendant€had€not€been€served€with€process€andÐ 0"€  Ðthat€Moore€did€not€have€authority€from€the€defendant€to€waive€service€of€process.€€Allison€thereuponÐ #l! Ðhad€a€pluries€summons€issued€on€September€15,€1998,€which€was€more€than€one€year€from€the€dateÐ $X" Ðof€the€issuance€of€the€alias€summons€issued€on€July€12,€1997,Ô#†XöCXXXñHŒ #ÔÔ‡XñHXXXöCÔÔ#†¼¸”»XXñHm #ÔÔ‡XñHX»¼¸”Ô€and€defendant€was€served€onÐ ô$D # ÐSeptember25,€1998.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àOn€September€30,€1998,€Moore,€on€behalf€of€Bell,€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€on€the€groundÐ ¸'#& Ðthat€plaintiffððs€action€was€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations€because€of€plaintiffððs€failure€to€complyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwith€Rule€3,€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€motion€to€dismiss,€and€Crump€appeals€andÐ )à$( Ðpresents€two€issues€for€review.€€They€are,€as€stated€in€his€brief:Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àI.€€Was€State€Farm€acting€as€the€agent€for€its€insured,€Kimberly€Bell,Ð ° Ðwhen€it€assumed€control€of€the€lawsuit€plaintiff€filed€against€her€andÐ œì Ðthe€subsequent€settlement€negotiations.ЈØ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àII.€€Did€State€Farm€impliedly€waive€the€provisions€of€Tenn.R.Civ.P.Ð `° Ð3€so€that€it€is€now€estopped€to€use€it€as€a€defense.ÐL œ` x` x ÐÌà  àWe€perceive€the€determinative€issue€to€be€whether€the€defendant€is€equitably€estopped€toÐ $ t Ðassert€that€plaintiffððs€cause€of€action€is€time€barred€by€plaintiffððs€failure€to€comply€with€Rule€3,Ð  ` ÐÔ_ÔTenn.R.Civ.P.Ô_ÔÐ ü L  ÐÌà  àRule€3,€Ô_ÔTenn.R.Civ.P.Ô_Ô,€provides:Ð Ô$  ÐÌÔ#†XöCXXXñH‰#ÔÔ‡XöCXXXöCÔà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àAll€civil€actions€are€commenced€by€filing€a€complaint€with€theÐ ¬ü  Ðclerk€of€the€court.€€An€action€is€commenced€within€the€meaning€ofÐ œì  Ðany€statute€of€limitations€upon€such€filing€of€a€complaint,€whetherÐ ŒÜ  Ðprocess€be€issued€or€not€issued€and€whether€process€be€returnedÐ |Ì Ðserved€or€unserved.€€ò òIf€process€remains€unissued€for€30€days€or€isÐ l¼ Ðnot€served€within€30€days€from€issuance,€regardless€of€the€reason,Ð \¬ Ðthe€plaintiff€cannot€rely€upon€the€original€commencement€to€tollÐ Lœ Ðthe€running€of€a€statute€of€limitations€unless€the€plaintiffÐ <Œ Ðcontinues€the€action€by€obtaining€issuance€of€new€process€withinÐ ,| Ðone€year€from€issuance€of€the€previous€processó ó€or,€if€no€process€isÐ l Ðissued,€within€one€year€of€the€filing€of€the€complaint.€(EmphasisÐ  \ Ðadded).ÐüL` x` x ÐÌÔ#†XöCXXXöCË$#ÔÔ‡XñHXXXöCÔà  àAppellant€concedes€by€his€brief€that€there€was€no€compliance€with€the€requirements€of€RuleÐ Ü, Ð3,€but€asserts€that€the€action€of€Bellððs€insurance€company,€acting€for€Bell,€caused€his€noncomplianceÐ È Ðwith€Rule€3.Ð ´ ÐÌà  àThe€burden€of€establishing€an€estoppel€rests€upon€the€party€who€invokes€it.€€ò òòòJenkins„Subway,Ð Œ Ü ÐInc.€v.€Jonesó óóó,€990€S.W.2d€713€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€In€ò òòòGitter€v.€Tennessee€Farmers€Mut.€Ins.Ð x!È ÐCo.ó óóó,€60€Tenn.€App.€698,€450€S.W.2d€780€(1969),€this€Court€stated€the€requirements€to€establishÐ d"´  Ðequitable€estoppel:€Ð P# ! ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€essential€elements€of€an€equitable€estoppel€as€related€toÐ (%x # Ðthe€party€claiming€the€estoppel,€are,€(1)€lack€of€knowledge€and€of€theÐ &d!$ Ðmeans€of€knowledge€of€the€truth€as€to€the€facts€in€question;€(2)Ð 'P"% Ðreliance€upon€the€conduct€of€the€party€estopped,€and€(3)€action€basedÐ ì'<#& Ðthereon€of€such€a€character€as€to€change€his€position€prejudicially.€Ð Ø(($' Ðò òòòProvident€Washington€Ins.€Co.€v.€Reeseó óóó€(1963),€213€Tenn.€355,€373Ð Ä)%( ÐS.W.2d€613.а*&)` x` x ÐÐ œ+ì&* Ðò òòòId.€ó óóó€At€783.Ð ° ÐÌà  àIn€ò òòòToney€v.€Cunninghamó óóó,€No.€02A01„9801„CV„00005,€1999€WL€188291€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ˆØ ÐApril€6,€1999),€this€Court€considered€the€question€of€equitable€estoppel€in€connection€with€theÐ tÄ Ðplaintiffððs€noncompliance€with€Rule€3.€€In€ò òòòToneyó óóó,€the€plaintiff€filed€a€wrongful€death€action€on€MayÐ `° Ð26,€1995,€against€Pearcy€and€Mary€Ward,€and€others.€€Process€was€issued€the€same€day€to€the€Wards,Ð L œ Ðbut€was€returned€unserved€on€June€16,€1995.€€On€March€20,€1996,€the€attorney€for€the€WardsÐ 8 ˆ Ðtelephoned€the€attorney€for€the€plaintiff€and€requested€additional€time€to€answer€plaintiffððs€complaint,Ð $ t Ðand€it€was€agreed€during€this€conversation€that€the€Wards€would€file€an€answer€to€the€plaintiffððsÐ  ` Ðcomplaint€and€that€no€default€judgment€would€be€sought€or€taken€against€the€Wards.€€On€May€22,Ð ü L  Ð1996,€Wardððs€attorney€faxed€and€mailed€a€letter€to€plaintiffððs€attorney€stating€that€the€Wards€had€notÐ è 8  Ðbeen€served€with€process.€€Thereafter,€on€July€2,€1996,€process€was€again€issued€to€the€Wards,€andÐ Ô$  Ðthey€were€served.€€The€Wards€filed€an€answer€on€July€17,€1996.€€Subsequently,€the€Wards€filedÐ À  Ðmotions€to€quash€the€process€that€was€served€on€them€and€to€dismiss€the€complaint.€€This€motionÐ ¬ü  Ðwas€granted€by€the€trial€court.€€Plaintiff€contended,€however,€that€the€Wards€should€be€precludedÐ ˜è  Ðfrom€asserting€lack€of€service€of€process€as€a€defense€under€the€doctrine€of€equitable€estoppelÐ „Ô  Ðarguing€that€the€March€20,€1996€agreement€between€Toneyððs€counsel€and€Wardsððs€counsel€expressedÐ pÀ Ðan€intent€on€the€part€of€the€Wards€to€proceed€with€the€lawsuit,€even€though€they€had€not€been€servedÐ \¬ Ðwith€process€and€that€Toney€relied€to€her€detriment€upon€the€intent€expressed€by€this€agreement.€Ð H˜ ÐAffirming€the€trial€court,€the€Court€noted€the€elements€of€equitable€estoppel€and€said:€Ð 4„ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àIn€the€instant€case,€we€do€not€think€that€the€actions€of€counselÐ  \ Ðfor€the€Wards€amounted€to€a€false€representation€or€concealment€ofÐ øH Ðmaterial€facts.€€Nor€do€we€think€that€this€conduct€was€calculated€toÐ ä4 Ðconvey€the€impression€that€the€facts€were€in€any€way€different€fromÐ Ð  Ðthose€subsequently€asserted€by€the€Wards.€€The€Wards€did€not€agreeÐ ¼  Ðto€waive€service€of€process€or€to€waive€any€defense€based€on€theÐ ¨ø Ðstatute€of€limitations.€€Rather,€the€Wards€simply€agreed€to€file€anÐ ”ä Ðanswer€to€Ms.€Toneyððs€complaint.€€Consistent€with€this€agreement,€anÐ €Ð Ðanswer€was€filed€by€the€Wards€on€July€17,€1996.€€Additionally,€thereÐ l¼ Ðis€no€evidence€that,€in€agreeing€to€answer€Ms.€Toneyððs€complaint,€theÐ X ¨ ÐWards€intended€to€induce€Ms.€Toney€into€allowing€the€statute€ofÐ D!” Ðlimitations€to€expire.€€On€the€contrary,€in€a€letter€dated€May€22,€1996,Ð 0"€  Ðcounsel€for€the€Wards€notified€counsel€for€Ms.€Toney€that€the€WardsÐ #l! Ðhad€not€been€served€with€process.€€On€the€date€that€this€notificationÐ $X" Ðoccurred,€Ms.€Toney€could€have€timely€refiled€her€action€against€theÐ ô$D # ÐWards,€thus€allowing€her€to€rely€on€the€date€of€her€original€complaintÐ à%0!$ Ðfor€purposes€of€the€statute€of€limitations.€€Finally,€there€is€noÐ Ì&"% Ðindication€that€Ms.€Toney€did€not€know€or€have€the€ability€to€discoverÐ ¸'#& Ðthat€the€Wards€had€not€been€served€with€process.€€Although€under€noÐ ¤(ô#' Ðobligation€to€do€so,€counsel€for€the€Wards€notified€counsel€for€Ms.Ð )à$( ÐToney€of€this€fact.€€Even€absent€this€notification,€however,€Ms.€ToneyÐ |*Ì%) Ðor€her€counsel€could€have€readily€discovered€that€the€Wards€had€notÐ h+¸&* Ðbeen€served€with€process.а` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àAs€discussed€above,€we€find€that€Ms.€Toney€has€failed€toÐ ˆØ Ðprove€the€essential€elements€of€the€doctrine€of€equitable€estoppel.€Ð tÄ ÐThus,€having€also€found€that€Ms.€Toney€failed€to€comply€with€theÐ `° Ðrequirements€of€Rule€3,€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€properly€grantedÐ L œ Ðthe€Wardsðð€motion€to€quash€the€process€served€on€them€and€dismissÐ 8 ˆ ÐMs.€Toneyððs€complaint.Ð$ t` x` x ÐÌò òòòId.ó óóó€at€**3.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àIn€ò òòòOcchipinti€€v.€Stephensó óóó,€No.€01A01„9504„CV„00133,€1995€WL€571849€(Tenn.€App.Ð Ô$  ÐSept.€29,€1995)€the€only€issue€before€the€Court€was€whether€the€defendant€was€Ô_ÔestoppedÔ_Ô€to€raise€theÐ À  Ðplaintiffððs€failure€to€keep€this€action€alive€in€accordance€with€Rule€3,€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€€In€ò òòòOcchipinti,Ð ¬ü  Ðó óóóplaintiffs€were€injured€in€an€automobile€accident€on€December€12,€1991,€and€early€in€1992,€theirÐ ˜è  Ðattorney€started€negotiating€a€settlement€with€the€defendantððs€insurance€company.€€NegotiationsÐ „Ô  Ðdragged€on€through€the€summer€and€fall,€and€plaintiffsðð€attorney€filed€a€complaint€on€November€12,Ð pÀ Ð1992,€because€the€statute€of€limitations€was€about€to€run.€€Summons€was€issued€on€November€13,Ð \¬ Ð1992,€and€a€ð ðnot€to€be€foundðð€return€was€made€on€November€16,€1992.€€Plaintiffsðð€counsel€took€noÐ H˜ Ðfurther€action€until€September€1,€1993,€when€he€had€an€alias€summons€issued,€which€was€alsoÐ 4„ Ðreturned€ð ðnot€to€be€found.ðð€€Finally,€plaintiffs€obtained€service€of€process€through€the€Secretary€ofÐ  p ÐState€on€November€4,€1993.€€The€trial€judge€dismissed€the€case€because€of€plaintiffsðð€failure€toÐ  \ Ðcomply€with€Rule€3.€€Plaintiffs€asserted€that€the€reason€they€took€no€action€between€the€return€of€theÐ øH Ðfirst€summons€and€the€issuance€of€the€second€summons€on€September€1,€1993׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×,€was€ð ðbecause€theÐ ä4 Ðadjuster€for€the€defendantððs€insurance€company€led€them€to€believe€that€it€was€not€necessary€to€serveÐ Ð  Ðthe€defendant.ðð€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€at€**1.€€The€record€indicated€that€the€adjuster€for€the€insurance€company€did€notÐ ¼  Ðrefer€the€case€to€a€lawyer€for€a€defense,€because€the€defendant€had€not€been€served€with€process,€andÐ ¨ø Ðthe€parties€continued€to€negotiate€resulting€in€an€offer€by€the€insurance€company€to€settle€on€July€27,Ð ”ä Ð1993,€which€offer€was€rejected€by€the€plaintiff.€€Affirming€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€plaintiffsððÐ €Ð Ðaction,€this€Court€said:Ð l¼ ЀÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€dealings€between€the€parties€in€the€crucial€six€monthÐ D!” Ðperiod€after€the€filing€of€the€original€complaint€(which€the€plaintiffsÐ 0"€  Ðwere€careful€to€file€even€though€the€parties€were€in€negotiations)€doÐ #l! Ðnot€make€out€a€case€of€equitable€estoppel.€€Even€viewed€in€the€lightÐ $X" Ðmost€favorable€to€the€plaintiffs,€the€proof€shows€only€that€plaintiffsððÐ ô$D # Ðcounsel€assumed€that€it€was€not€necessary€to€get€the€defendant€served;Ð à%0!$ Ðand€that€assumption€was€based€on€the€fact€that€the€insurance€adjusterÐ Ì&"% Ðsaid€it€didnððt€matter€to€him€whether€the€defendant€was€served€or€not.€Ð ¸'#& ÐThere€is€no€proof€that€the€adjuster€knew€of€any€legal€reason€why€theÐ ° Ðplaintiffs€should€get€the€defendant€served€once€the€action€had€beenÐ œì Ðfiled.€€The€adjuster€testified€he€was€not€aware€that€process€had€to€beÐ ˆØ Ðrenewed€within€six€months.€€We€do€not€think€a€reasonable€personÐ tÄ Ðwould€have€concluded€from€the€exchange€with€the€adjuster€that€theÐ `° Ðinsurance€company€was€waiving€any€of€the€legal€rights€of€its€insured.€ÐL œ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àAnother€reason€why€the€plaintiffs€cannot€sustain€their€estoppelÐ $ t Ðargument€is€the€fact€that€the€negotiations€between€the€parties€brokeÐ  ` Ðdown€well€before€a€year€had€passed€since€the€filing€of€the€originalÐ ü L  Ðcomplaint.€€Therefore,€the€plaintiffs€had€ample€time€to€refile€theÐ è 8  Ðaction€and€avoid€the€statute€of€limitations€problem.€€Plaintiffs€cannotÐ Ô$  Ðcontend€that€they€still€thought€they€were€going€to€settle€the€case€whenÐ À  Ðthey€chose€to€obtain€new€process€in€an€untimely€manner€rather€thanÐ ¬ü  Ðrefiling€the€action€within€the€year€from€the€filing€of€the€originalÐ ˜è  Ðaction.Ð„Ô ` x` x ÐÌò òòòId.ó óóó€at€**3.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àIn€the€case€at€bar,€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€indicate€that€State€Farm€at€any€timeÐ 4„ Ðindicated€to€plaintiffððs€counsel€that€there€was€no€need€to€comply€with€the€provisions€ofÐ  p ÐTenn.R.Civ.P.€3.€€Plaintiff€asserts€that€he€was€led€to€believe€that€the€case€would€be€arbitrated.€€TheÐ  \ Ðinsurance€policy€is€not€a€part€of€the€record€in€this€case,€and€we€are€unable€to€determine€if€there€isÐ øH Ðanything€in€the€policy€provisions€that€would€indicate€when€an€agreement€to€arbitrate€is€made€it€isÐ ä4 Ðbinding€to€the€extent€that€all€procedural€requirements€for€actions€against€the€insured€are€waived.€Ð Ð  ÐThere€simply€is€nothing€in€this€record€to€indicate€that€representations€were€made€by€State€Farm€toÐ ¼  Ðlead€Bellððs€attorney€to€believe€that€there€was€no€necessity€to€comply€with€Rule€3.€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€the€order€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed,€and€this€case€is€remanded€to€the€trialÐ €Ð Ðcourt€for€such€other€proceedings€as€may€be€necessary.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€are€assessed€against€theÐ l¼ Ðappellant,€Ô_ÔTalmageÔ_Ô€Crump.Ô#†XöCXXXñH)#ÔÔ#†¼á$»XXöCË#ÔÔ‡XöCX»¼á$ÔÐ X ¨ ÐÌÔ#†¼á$»XXöCX#ÔÔ€XöCX»¼á$Ô