ÿWPC™  …# VUNa %¯ 0Nµ 0Í bÐ w@Ø 4 , 0D;  †‡  m 0J& 0Tp 0^Ä 0h" 0rŠ 0|ü 0†x 0þ 1uŽ 0dU >gB)¥DCÎ AM B^U*{ D3¥.Ø] 0@cv~£vÓ! AOôÆC 0D D/M B| ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0nLHÎ'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular¼(&öy$¡¡Ó  ÓÙñÓ Ù(}(2rò$¤¤Ý ƒöy!ÝÓ  ÓÙñÓ ÙÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XeuX¼¼Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù- õDöD÷DøùúDû-eüýÓ€ DÒ -3|x (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóDraper v. Reaver - opinion Í$ ' IB011C20IB011C2 .    ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ2 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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d< Œ 9p`(Arial(((('ÿÿdxd $Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÔ€$¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌApril€11,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó SÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÔ€$¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€$XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€purpose€of€the€amendment€was€obviously€to€enable€Pig€Improvement€to€assert€itsÏ¢subrogation£€rights€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„112(c).€€In€an€affidavit€supporting€theÏmotion€to€amend,€Mr.€Draperððs€lawyer€explained€that€he€had€been€retained€to€represent€PigÏImprovement€ð ðfor€the€use€and€benefit€of€Continental€Casualty€Company.ðð€€In€addition€to€filingÏa€motion€to€amend€Mr.€Draperððs€complaint,€the€lawyer€also€prepared€and€filed€a€separate€suitÏwherein€Pig€Improvement€asserted€its€¢subrogation£€claims€against€Messrs.€¢Reaver£€and€¢Tacey£.€ÏThe€later€dismissal€of€that€suit€is€the€subject€of€another€appeal.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÔ€$¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý›Ñ Ü ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€Oi¼¼ddÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñœ›Þ ÞÌà@ àÔ€$„Ôò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLE̜ـ€ÙßR€'+&A1-j|Äm` ç `€€@ÿRß›ÌÔ€$¼ÔÌÌó óPAUL€GLEN€DRAPER,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€95C„3755ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01A01„9609„CV„00394ÌCURT€REAVER€andà àà àà à)ÌRICHARD€ALAN€TACEY,€JR.,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellees.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€FOR€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€MARIETTA€M.€SHIPLEY,€JUDGEÌÌÌòòFor€the€Plaintiff/Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Defendant/AppelleeóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòCurt€Reaveróó:ÌJoseph€P.€RusnakÌTUNE,€ENTREKIN€&€WHITEà àà àà àBryan€EssaryÌNashville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àà àJoe€W.€Ellis,€IIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àGIDEON€&€WISEMANÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Defendant/AppelleeóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòRichard€Alan€Tacey,€Jr.óó:ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDennis€E.€BlevinsÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€$„Ôò òAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€VACATED€IN€PARTÌ€à@ àAND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÔ€$¼ÔÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,ÏJUDGEÇÓ€ÓÔ€$„Ôà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÔ€$¼ÔÌà àThis€appeal€stems€from€a€three„vehicle€collision€on€I„65€in€DavidsonÏCounty.€€One€driver€filed€suit€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÏagainst€his€employer€and€the€owners€of€the€other€two€vehicles.€€The€plaintiffÏlater€voluntarily€dismissed€his€claims€against€his€employer€and€moved€toÏamend€his€complaint€to€add€his€employer€as€a€plaintiff.€€The€trial€court€deniedÏthe€motion€and€granted€summary€judgments€dismissing€the€plaintiffððs€claimsÏagainst€the€owners€of€the€other€vehicles.€€The€plaintiff€asserts€on€this€appealÏthat€the€trial€court€should€have€permitted€him€to€amend€his€complaint€and€thatÏthe€summary€judgments€would€have€been€inappropriate€had€the€trial€courtÏdone€so.€€While€the€trial€court€properly€granted€the€summary€judgmentsÏconcerning€the€plaintiffððs€personal€injury€claims,€it€erred€by€dismissing€theÏplaintiffððs€property€damage€claims.€€In€order€to€avoid€a€multiplicity€of€suits,Ïthe€trial€court€should€have€treated€the€plaintiffððs€motion€to€amend€hisÏcomplaint€as€a€motion€by€the€plaintiffððs€employer€to€intervene€as€of€rightÏpursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„112(c)€(1991).€€Accordingly,€we€vacateÏthe€summary€judgments€in€part€and€remand€the€case€for€further€proceedings.ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àOn€October€22,€1994,€Paul€Draper€was€involved€in€a€three„vehicleÏcollision€on€I„65€in€Nashville€while€attempting€to€assist€a€stranded€pedestrian.€ÏOn€November€7,€1995,€he€filed€suit€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÏagainst€his€employer,€Pig€Improvement€Company,€and€the€owners€of€the€otherÏtwo€vehicles€involved€in€the€collision,€Richard€Alan€¢Tacey£,€Jr.€and€CurtÍ¢Reaver£,€seeking€to€recover€for€personal€injury€and€damage€to€his€personalÏproperty.€€ÌÌà àOn€February€8,€1996,€Mr.€¢Reaver£€moved€for€summary€judgmentÏasserting€that€Mr.€Draperððs€claims€were€time„barred.€€While€this€motion€wasÏpending,€Mr.€Draper€voluntarily€dismissed€his€claims€against€PigÏImprovement€and€moved€to€amend€his€complaint€to€add€Pig€Improvement€as€aÏplaintiff.¢× ƒ, ××  ×£€€The€trial€court€granted€Mr.€¢Reaver£ððs€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment€before€it€heard€Mr.€Draperððs€motion€to€amend.€€Thereafter,€Mr.Ï¢Tacey£€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€also€asserting€that€Mr.€DraperððsÏclaims€against€him€were€time„barred.€€The€trial€court€consolidated€bothÏmotions€for€hearing,€and€on€June€20,€1996,€entered€an€order€granting€Mr.Ï¢Tacey£ððs€motion€for€summary€judgment€and€denying€Mr.€Draperððs€motion€toÏamend.€€This€appeal€followed.ÌÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌÌà àWe€must€first€address€a€threshold€question€concerning€the€viability€ofÏthis€appeal.€€After€Mr.€Draper€filed€his€brief,€Messrs.€¢Reaver£€and€¢Tacey£,Ïrelying€on€the€Eastern€Sectionððs€opinion€in€òòCobb€v.€¢Beier£,óó€App.€No.€¢03A01£„9602„CV„00051,€1996€WL€375293€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€July€3,€1996),€òòperm.€app.Ïgrantedóó€(Tenn.€Oct.€28,€1996),€€moved€to€dismiss€the€appeal€because€Mr.ÍDraper€had€failed€to€file€a€copy€of€his€notice€of€appeal€with€the€clerk€of€theÏappellate€court€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€5(a).€€We€took€theseÏmotions€under€advisement€in€October€1996€in€anticipation€that€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€would€address€this€question.€€Rather€than€delaying€theÏdisposition€of€this€appeal,€we€have€elected€to€proceed€without€the€high€courtððsÏguidance.ÌÌà àThroughout€their€eighteen„year€life€span,€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏAppellate€Procedure€have€not€consistently€required€appellants€to€file€a€copy€ofÏthe€notice€of€appeal€with€the€appellate€court€clerk.€€When€the€rules€firstÏbecame€effective€in€1979,€€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€5(a)€required€the€appellant€in€aÏcivil€action€to€ð ðserve€a€copy€of€the€notice€of€appeal€.€.€.€on€the€clerk€of€theÏappellate€court€designated€in€the€notice€of€appeal.ðð€€The€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt€removed€the€requirement€in€1984€because€it€ð ðaccomplished€no€vitalÏpurpose,€but€instead€resulted€in€a€surplus€of€notices€where€the€appeal€wasÏabandoned€because€of€settlement€or€otherwise.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€5,€¢cmt£.€toÏ1984€Amendment.€€In€1991,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€restored€theÏlanguage€to€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€5(a)€that€it€had€removed€seven€years€earlier.€€ÌÌà àThe€1991€amendment€to€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€5(a)€had€little€noticeableÏeffect€on€practice€before€the€intermediate€appellate€courts.€€In€fact,€it€passedÏlargely€without€notice€until€the€òòCobb€v.€¢Beier£óó€decision.€€Within€weeks€afterÏòòCobb€v.€¢Beier£,€óóthis€court€began€to€receive€a€steady€stream€of€motions€toÏdismiss€appeals€for€failure€to€comply€with€the€reincarnated€requirement€thatÏthe€notice€of€appeal€be€filed€with€the€clerk€of€the€appellate€court€in€addition€toÍthe€trial€court€clerk.€€None€of€these€motions€contained€a€¢colorable£€showing€ofÏprejudice.ÌÌà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€decided€to€review€òòCobb€v.€¢Beier£óó€and€onÏJanuary€23,€1997,€entered€an€order€amending€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€5(a)€to€shiftÏthe€obligation€of€filing€the€notice€of€appeal€with€the€clerk€of€the€appellateÏcourt€from€the€appellant€to€the€clerk€of€the€trial€court.€€The€proposed€advisoryÏcommission€comment€notes€that€ð ð[¢s]ervice£€of€a€copy€[of€the€notice€of€appeal]Ïon€the€appellate€clerk€is€not€jurisdictional.ðð€€This€proposed€rule,€if€adopted,Ïeffectively€eliminates€prospective€difficulties€caused€by€failing€to€file€a€copy€ofÏthe€notice€of€appeal€with€the€appellate€court€clerk.€€The€pending€decision€byÏthe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€will€provide€authoritative€guidance€for€the€casesÏthat€are€currently€pending€on€appeal.ÌÌà àThe€òòCobb€v.€¢Beier£óó€decision€is€not€the€first€time€this€court€has€addressedÏthe€consequences€of€failing€to€file€a€copy€of€a€notice€of€appeal€with€theÏappellate€court€clerk.€€€The€Middle€Section€addressed€this€issue€in€1984€in€theÏcontext€of€the€first€reincarnation€of€the€requirement€and€held€that€failing€toÏfile€a€copy€of€the€notice€of€appeal€with€the€clerk€of€the€appellate€court€was€notÏfatal€to€an€appeal,€as€long€as€a€timely€notice€of€appeal€had€been€filed€with€theÏclerk€of€the€trial€court€and€served€on€opposing€counsel.€€òòHolder€v.€Holder,óóÏApp.€No.€84„117„II,€slip€op.€at€4€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Sept.€5,€1984)€(no€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€11€application€filed).€€Recently,€we€cited€òòHolder€v.€Holderóó€as€a€basisÏfor€¢pretermitting£€the€issue€raised€by€the€failure€to€file€a€notice€of€appeal€withÏthe€clerk€of€the€appellate€court.€€òòVenture€Express,€Inc.€v.€¢Raeford£€TruckingÍCo.,óó€App.€No.€¢01A01£„9608„CH„00352,€1997€WL€71813,€at€*1„2€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€Feb.€21,€1997).€€ÌÌà àThe€timely€filing€of€a€notice€of€appeal€in€a€civil€case€is,€withoutÏquestion,€mandatory€and€jurisdictional.€€òòFirst€¢Natððl£€Bank€v.€¢Goss£,óó€912€¢S.W.2d£Ï147,€148€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€4(a)ððs€requirement€that€theÏnotice€of€appeal€be€filed€within€thirty€days€applies€only€to€notices€filed€withÏthe€clerk€of€the€trial€court.€€Neither€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€4€nor€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ï5€requires€that€the€notice€of€appeal€be€filed€with€the€clerk€of€the€appellateÏcourt€within€any€particular€time.€€In€the€absence€of€such€a€requirement,€we€areÏreluctant€to€dismiss€an€appeal€simply€because€an€appellant€delayed€filing€aÏnotice€of€appeal€with€the€clerk€of€the€appellate€court.ÌÌà àWith€deference€to€our€Eastern€Section€colleagues,€we€adhere€to€ourÏearlier€òòHolder€v.€Holderóó€decision.€€Mr.€Draper€prepared€and€filed€a€timelyÏnotice€of€appeal€with€the€clerk€of€the€trial€court€and€served€a€copy€of€thisÏnotice€of€appeal€on€his€adversaries.€€The€record€contains€no€¢colorable£€proofÏthat€Messrs.€¢Reaver£€and€¢Tacey£€were€actually€prejudiced€by€Mr.€DraperððsÏoversight.€€Accordingly,€we€invoke€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€2€to€relieve€Mr.€DraperÏfrom€the€requirement€of€filing€a€timely€notice€of€appeal€with€the€clerk€of€theÏappellate€court.€€ÌÌà@ àò òIII.ó óÌÌà àThis€appeal€involves€a€common€occurrence€„€a€person€injured€duringÏthe€course€of€employment€by€the€negligence€of€third„parties.€€Depending€onÍthe€facts,€these€circumstances€may€give€rise€to€several€distinct€claims€againstÏthe€negligent€third„parties.€€The€injured€employee€may€seek€to€recover€for€hisÏpersonal€injuries€and€for€the€damage€to€his€property.€€The€employer€of€theÏinjured€employee€may€have€a€claim€for€damage€to€its€personal€property€andÏmay€also€have€a€derivative€claim€arising€out€of€its€employeeððs€personalÏinjuries.€€This€derivative€claim,€commonly€referred€to€as€a€¢subrogation£€claim,Ïis€not€necessarily€as€broad€as€the€employeeððs€personal€injury€claim€but€ratherÏis€limited€to€the€workerððs€compensation€benefits€paid€to€the€employee.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€50„6„112(c)(1);€òòCross€v.€Pan€Am€World€¢Servs£.,€Inc.,óó€749Ï¢S.W.2d£€29,€30€(Tenn.€1987),€òò¢revððd£€on€other€groundsóó,€867€¢S.W.2d£€312,€315Ï(Tenn.€1993);€òòAetna€¢Cas£.€&€Sur.€Co.€v.€¢Gilreath£,óó€625€¢S.W.2d£€269,€273€(Tenn.Ï1981).€ÌÌà àDifferent€statutes€of€limitations€apply€to€each€of€these€claims.€€TheÏemployee€must€file€his€or€her€personal€injury€claims€within€one€year€from€theÏdate€of€injury.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„112(d)(1)€(1991);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ28„3„104(a)(1)€(Supp.€1996);€òòCraig€v.€R.R.€Street€&€Co.,€óó794€¢S.W.2d£€351,Ï357„58€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990).€€The€employee€and€the€employer€must€fileÏtheir€property€damage€claims€within€three€years€from€the€date€that€theirÏproperty€was€damaged.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„3„105(1)€(Supp.€1996).€ÏFinally,€if€an€employee€does€not€file€a€personal€injury€claim,€the€employerÏmust€file€its€¢subrogation£€claim€within€eighteen€months€from€the€date€of€theÏemployeeððs€injury.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„112(d)(2);€òòCraig€v.€R.R.€Street€&ÏCo.óó,€794€¢S.W.2d£€at€358.ÌÌà àA€normal€statute€of€limitations€bars€only€the€remedy,€not€the€substantiveÏright,€òòWatts€v.€Putnam€County,óó€525€¢S.W.2d£€488,€492€(Tenn.€1975);€òòPacificÏEastern€Corp.€v.€Gulf€Life€Holding€Co.,óó€902€¢S.W.2d£€946,€955€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1995),€but€not€so€with€an€employeeððs€claims€against€third„parties€for€personalÏinjuries€sustained€during€the€course€of€employment.€€Employees€who€fail€toÏfile€their€personal€injury€action€within€one€year€from€their€injury€not€onlyÏlose€their€remedy€but€also€their€substantive€claim.€€By€operation€of€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€50„6„112(d)(2),€these€personal€injury€claims€are€assigned€to€theÏemployer€one€year€after€the€employeeððs€injury.€€òòCraig€v.€R.R.€Street€&€Co.,óóÏ794€¢S.W.2d£€at€358.ÌÌà@ àò òIV.ó óÌà@ àòòò òDraperððs€Personal€Injury€and€Property€Damage€Claimsó óóóÌÌà àWe€turn€our€attention€first€to€Mr.€Draperððs€personal€injury€andÏproperty€damage€claims.€€The€trial€court€dismissed€these€claims€on€the€groundÏthat€they€were€time„barred€because€Mr.€Draper€filed€suit€more€than€one€yearÏafter€he€sustained€the€injuries.€€It€is€undisputed€that€Mr.€Draper€was€injured€onÏOctober€22,€1994€and€that€he€filed€suit€on€November€7,€1995.€€By€the€timeÏMr.€Draper€filed€suit,€not€only€had€the€one„year€statute€of€limitations€expired,Ïbut€his€personal€injury€claims€had€also€passed€by€operation€of€law€to€PigÏImprovement.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€was€undoubtedly€correct€when€itÏdismissed€Mr.€Draperððs€personal€injury€claims.€€ÌÌà àMr.€Draperððs€property€damage€claims€do€not€meet€the€same€fate€becauseÏthey€are€governed€by€the€three„year,€as€opposed€to€the€one„year,€statute€ofÍlimitations.€€Mr.€Draperððs€suit€was€well€within€the€three„year€limitationsÏperiod,€and€thus€it€is€not€time„barred.€€In€addition,€these€claims€could€not€haveÏbeen€assigned€to€Pig€Improvement€because€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„112(d)(2)Ïdoes€not€apply€to€property€damage€claims.€€Accordingly,€we€hold€that€the€trialÏcourt€correctly€dismissed€Mr.€Draperððs€personal€injury€claims€but€erred€byÏdismissing€his€property€damage€claims.€€ÌÌà@ àò òV.ó óÌà@ àòòò òPig€Improvementððs€¢Subrogation£€Claimsó óóóÌÌà àWe€now€turn€to€Pig€Improvementððs€¢subrogation£€claims.€€The€maladroitÏefforts€to€assert€these€claims€do€not€comply€with€the€workerððs€compensationÏstatute€or€the€rules€of€civil€procedure.€€Nonetheless,€the€trial€court€should€haveÏconsidered€the€substance€rather€than€the€form€of€the€motion€to€amend€theÏcomplaint€and€should€have€permitted€Pig€Improvement€to€intervene€in€thisÏcase€rather€than€requiring€it€to€file€a€separate€suit.€€ÌÌà àThe€workerððs€compensation€statutes€permit€employers€to€assert€theirÏ¢subrogation£€claims€in€two€ways.€€They€may€proceed€in€their€own€name€or€inÏthe€name€of€their€employee.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„112(d)(2).€€If€theyÏdecide€to€proceed€in€their€own€name,€they€may€either€intervene€in€theirÏemployeeððs€lawsuit,€or€they€may€file€a€separate€suit€in€their€own€name.€€òòCraigÏv.€R.R.€Street€&€Co.,óó€794€¢S.W.2d£€at€358.€€For€reasons€not€apparent€in€theÏrecord,€Pig€Improvement€did€not€file€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€24.01€motion€toÏintervene€as€of€right.€€Instead,€Mr.€Draper€filed€a€motion€to€amend€hisÏcomplaint€to€add€Pig€Improvement€as€a€plaintiff.ÌÌà àThe€motion€to€amend€was€a€poor€procedural€choice€because€the€trialÏcourt€had€already€determined€that€Mr.€Draperððs€personal€injury€claims€againstÏMr.€¢Reaver£€were€time„barred€and€because€what€remained€of€Mr.€DraperððsÏpersonal€injury€claims€had€already€passed€by€operation€of€law€to€PigÏImprovement.€€Nonetheless,€€the€trial€court€should€have€construed€the€motionÏto€amend€in€light€of€its€substance€rather€than€its€form.€€òò¢Bemis£€Co.€v.€¢Hines£,óóÏ585€¢S.W.2d£€574,€576€(Tenn.€1979);€òò¢Pickard£€v.€¢Ferrell£,óó€45€Tenn.€App.€460,Ï471,€325€¢S.W.2d£€288,€292„93€(1959).€€Since€the€same€lawyer€represented€bothÏMr.€Draper€and€Pig€Improvement,€the€trial€court€should€have€treated€theÏmotion€to€amend€the€complaint€as€a€motion€to€intervene€and€should€haveÏpermitted€Pig€Improvement€to€assert€its€¢subrogation£€claim€in€the€proceeding.€€ÌÌà@ àò òVI.ó óÌÌà àWe€affirm€the€summary€dismissal€of€Mr.€Draperððs€personal€injuryÏclaims€but€vacate€the€dismissal€of€his€property€damage€claims.€€We€also€vacateÏthe€denial€of€the€motion€to€amend€and€remand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€withÏdirections€to€enter€an€order€permitting€Pig€Improvement€to€intervene€in€thisÏcase€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„112(c)€to€pursue€its€¢subrogation£Ïrights.€€We€tax€the€costs€of€this€appeal€in€equal€proportions€to€Paul€GlenÏDraper€and€his€surety€and€to€Bryan€¢Essary£€and€Richard€Alan€¢Tacey£,€Jr.€forÏwhich€execution,€if€necessary,€may€issue.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,ÏJUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌ________________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€P.J.,€M.S.€ÌÌ________________________________ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGE€œ›