WPC 7NewiJcJq1``] \MئUp)%ɰWΰF5 G\dk}cL7_=zDx4ȁҳt̽%B6$ pà}lEyc佇2:hOαZθ ϖkӌG?78JAoil)Y,N vފ(ӀAb4 P﹗?X<qwIlYT;2mdy΃P`8^"߱!/Gk1#V7hh5H4oa16Anp^]?JrZ#@#z<8(0dDlg3XqЂd"$H 4i" $@Q{]W}24jnz9ba3H;Z }a2~Q/禴;+H)C뇦JnF_&Pg)QIL3ǒ1:#JkE=Lb#\ %% ^ + 07 U1N w 4 z%  q  m U N   s9 0DNCEEEb 0 B 0 D3 D- 0K AS*} 0C 0D A+\\IB01S01\CLERK1NAS,,,,0x/ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularqdj/:i+00 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|xU(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   TownesOsterSnellLeffewinsur[ing GTLAConley- -(|G2$ !.8C dXXd8         0  XX d(|3IK$ !.8C dXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3IK$ !.8C dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8C dd8     _C 8XXdd8@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @$ATNASHVILLE  @August5,2003Session $ XXC  #C XX#  QUEENSTREESURGERY,INC.,Plaintiff/Appellee,v.METROPOLITAN " GOVERNMENTOFNASHVILLEANDDAVIDSONCOUNTY,  6 TENNESSEE,Defendant/Appellant,PIEDMONTNATURALGAS  J COMPANY,INC.,d/b/aNASHVILLEGASCOMPANY,Defendant/Cross  ^ Defendant,andCHARTERTRANSPORTCORPORATION, " r Defendant/CrossPlaintiffXXC   6  @   DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty 6  @m m No.02C1692Hon.WalterKurtz,CircuitJudge "r  @*AV) ` dE<` A߈ 6 @& & No.M200300228_COA_ԄR3CVFiledNovember24,_2003_Ԁ 1 AV) ` dE<` A    Appellantdefendantinthisactionfordamageswasnonsuitedandthenaddedasdefendantpursuant  to_TCA_Ԁ201119.Thisdefendantappealedfromadversejudgment.Weaffirm.  #C XX#XXC  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed.  P HerschelPickensFranks#C X#XX.C ,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM.Goddard,#C X#XX.C  (x P.J.#C Xd#XX.C ,andCharlesD.Susano,Jr.J.,joined#C XX#XXC . d AnnOConnell,MargaretDarby,andJohnL.Kennedy,Nashville,Tennessee,for  < Defendant/Appellant. !(  QueensTreeSurgery,_Inc.,Nashville,Tennessee,ProSePlaintiff/Appellee. #" @66' OPINION #C XX1 #XXC Ԉ `'"&    ` Inthisactionforpropertydamages,anagreedJudgmentwasenteredallocating $*t%) damages,andtheMetropolitanGovernmentofNashvilleandDavidsonCounty( Metro)has +`&* appealed. +L'+    ` Theissuesraisedonappealare: -$)- _ԇ0  0` (#(#1.0 ` (#` (##C XX #XXC  XXXXWhetherthePlaintiffsclaimisbarredbyitsvoluntarynonsuit? (# (#   0  0` (#(#2.0 ` (#` (#WhetherthetrialcourterredbyallowingPlaintifftononsuitthe  MetropolitanGovernmentinordertorefilesuitagainsttheMetropolitan t GovernmentpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.201119?#XXX X # XXXX# C X X # XX C ` (# (#    ` PlaintiffsvehiclewasinvolvedinanautomobileaccidentonJune27,2000.All 8  defendantsagreethatplaintiffwasnotatfaultfortheaccident.Plaintifffiledsuitagainstall $ t defendantsonJune13,2002.Inthecourseoflitigation,theplaintiffarguedthediscoveryruletolled  ` thetimetofileagainstMetro,statingitdidnotlearnofMetropolitanspossibleinvolvementuntil  L  July26,2001.(Thisissuewasnotdirectlyraisedonappeal.)OnJune24,2002,MetrofiledaRule  8  12.06MotiontoDismissonthegroundsthatthestatuteoflimitationsexpiredpursuanttoTenn. $  CodeAnn.2920305(b),andthatasagovernmentalentity,itwasnotsubjecttocommonlaw   liabilityasallegedbythecomplaint.      ` OnJune27,2002,defendantPiedmontansweredandallegedthatMetrowasguilty   ofnegligencewhichcausedorcontributedtocauseplaintiffsdamages.PlaintifffiledanAmended p ComplaintonJuly22,2002,addingallegationsagainstMetroundertheGovernmentalTortLiability \ Act.OnAugust19,2002plaintifffiledaNoticeofNonsuitastoMetro.OnAugust19,2002, H plaintiffmovedtobepermittedtofilea SecondAmendedComplaint.OnAugust22,2002,the 4 CourtenteredanOrderdismissingMetrowithoutprejudice,andonthesamedate,theCourtentered  p anOrdergrantingplaintiffsMotiontopermitittofileanamendedcomplaint.OnSeptember5,  \ 2002,plaintifffiledan AmendedComplaint,renamingMetroasapartydefendantpursuantto H Tenn.CodeAnn.201119. 4    ` MetroessentiallyarguesthatTenn.CodeAnn.201119wasnotavailableto   plaintiffunderthesecircumstances,becausetheplaintiffknewofMetrosallegednegligenceand  namedMetroasadefendant,andasaconditiontoinvokethestatute,onlyappliesto apersonnot  apartytothesuit.     ` Tenn.CodeAnn.201119statesinpertinentpart: X  0  0` (#(#(a)0 ` (#` (#Incivilactionswherecomparativefaultisorbecomesanissue,ifadefendant 0"  namedinanoriginalcomplaintinitiatingasuitfiledwithintheapplicable #l! statuteoflimitations,ornamedinanamendedcomplaintfiledwithinthe $X" applicablestatuteoflimitations,allegesinanansweroramendedanswerto $D # theoriginaloramendedcomplaintthatapersonnotapartytothesuitcaused %0!$ orcontributedtotheinjuryordamageforwhichtheplaintiffseeksrecovery, &"% andiftheplaintiffscauseorcausesofactionagainstsuchpersonwouldbe '#& barredbyanyapplicablestatuteoflimitationsbutfortheoperationofthis (#' section,theplaintiffmay,withinninety(90)daysofthefilingofthefirst )$( answerorfirstamendedanswerallegingsuchpersonsfault,either:|*%) (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#(1)AmendthecomplainttoaddsuchpersonasadefendantpursuanttoRule h+&* 15oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedureandcauseprocesstobeissued  forthatperson;or (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#(2)Instituteaseparateactionagainstthatpersonbyfilingasummonsand  complaint.Iftheplaintiffelectstoproceedunderthissectionbyfilinga t separateaction,thecomplaintsofiledshallnotbeconsideredan original ` complaintinitiatingthesuitor anamendedcomplaintforpurposesofthis L  subsection.8  (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#... ` (# (# 0  0` (#(#(g)0 ` (#` (#Notwithstandinganyprovisionoflawtothecontrary,thissectionappliesto  8  suitsinvolvinggovernmentalentities.$  (# (# # C X X##C  C #XXC  XXXXTownesv.SunbeamOsterCo.,Inc.,etal.,50S.W.3d446(Tenn.Ct.App.2001),instructsonthese   issues.TheCourtsaid,andweagree,thatthestatuteisnotambiguous.Itsaid:   0  0` (#(#Tenn.CodeAnn.201119makesnoreferencetoaplaintiffsdiligencein p discoveringtheidentityofpotentiallyliableparties.Thestatuteprovidesaplaintiff \ withaninetydaywindowwithinwhichtoassertaclaimagainstacomparativetort H feasoraslongastwoconditionsaremet.Thefirstconditionisthatoneofthe 4 defendantsmustnamethecomparativetortfeasorasonewho causedorcontributed  p totheinjuryordamageforwhichtheplaintiffseeksrecovery.Thesecondcondition  \ isthatthenamedcomparativetortfeasoris notapartytothesuit.H` (#` (#    ` TheTownesCourtalsoanswersthequestionastowhenthestatusofapartyis   determined.TheCourtsaid:   0  0` (#(#WehavealreadyconcludedthatTenn.CodeAnn.201119,shouldbeconstrued  liberallytoenableplaintiffstohavetheirclaimsadjudicatedonthemerits.  Consistentwiththisconstruction,wehaveconcludedthatanaddeddefendants l statusasapartyshouldbedetermined,notwhentheoriginaldefendantnamesthe X  addeddefendantasanadditionalcomparativetortfeasorinitsansweroramended D! answer,butratherwhentheplaintiffeitherseekstoamenditscomplainttonamethe 0"  additionalcomparativetortfeasorasanadditionaldefendantortofileaseparate #l! complaintagainsttheadditionalcomparativetortfeasor.$X"` (#` (# Inthiscase,thenonsuitofthepartywaseffectiveuponfilingofthewrittennoticeofnonsuit.#XXX X!##C XXl!#XXC Snell %0!$ #C XXM*#XXC v.Leffew#C XX*# C ,#C  *#XXC 558S.W.2d849(Tenn.Ct.App.1977).WhiletheMotiontofileanAmendedComplaint &"% wasfiledonthesamedateastheNoticeofNonSuit,itwasfiledsubsequentintimetothefilingof '#& theNoticeofNonSuit,andMetrowasnotapartytotheactionatthetimetheMotiontoAmendwas (#' filed.Metroarguesthatitisaperversionofthestatutetopermitaplaintifftononsuitadefendant )$( forthesingularpurposeofrefilingunderthestatute.However,weconcludethatplaintiffmerely |*%) availeditselfofallpossibleremediesavailablewithinthelawthroughskillfulanddiligent h+&* representation.AppelleepointsoutthathadMetronotbeennamedintheoriginalsuit,itwouldbe  indisputablethatitcouldinvoke201119afterthedefendantallegedcomparativefaultagainst  Metro.Inourviewthisisamatterof insur[ing]thatcasesandcontroversiesbedeterminedupon  theirmeritsandnotuponlegaltechnicalitiesorproceduralniceties.Doylev.Frost,49S.W.3d853, t 855(Tenn.2001). `    ` Finally,MetroarguesthatsinceanysuitbroughtundertheGTLAmustbebrought 8  withintwelvemonthsafterthecauseofactionarises,aninterpretationof#C XX;+# C Ԁ#C  "1# C C  XX C Tenn.CodeAnn.201 $ t 119# C X X1# XX C #XXX Xe1# XXXX,whichwillallowsuittobebroughtafterthetwelvemonthshadrun,wouldfrustratethe  ` purposesoftheGTLA.Wecannotagree.Tenn.CodeAnn.201119#XXX X:2##C XX1# C C  XX C Ԁclearlyallowsthepartyto  L  beaddedwithinninetydaysfromthefilingoftheanswerallegingsuchpersonsfault.Section(g)  8  explainsthatthestatute appliestosuitsinvolvinggovernmentalentities.SeeTownes;Conleyv. $  State,2003WL21226810(Tenn.Ct.App.,May27,2003)andHumphreyv.State,2003WL   22046152(Tenn.Ct.App.,Aug.28,2003).      ` Fortheforegoingreasons,weaffirmtheJudgmentoftheTrialCourtandremand,   withthecostoftheappealassessedtotheMetropolitanGovernmentofNashvilleandDavidson p County,Tennessee. \    ` #XXX XT3##C XXs3#XXC    `     h     _________________________      `     h     HerschelPickensFranks,J.   #C X6#XX.C