ÿWPC|L ví Å.¯ä¾h¹Tw ¬#³¿89• ¬€Jlií^÷:¢¢¼©Qï0h Ô«LäûaB€§²eî³IX ?rÔ\GW2ÇpèÐ.;›§—»€°FG2D–~x“ô)÷™›é}‘ÕÀ·uÔ¾N'¯“õ¬’Ææ›ýåùMeäxÐ隇^F¨lÎäŒ{ÄÍÃ+Ÿ|¿A’Ån#Á %Å ^ Ë 0ˆ× U:N_ w­ 4± zÅ Ò?   m" 0D9 Æ} ÆC Æ ÆÏUN•NããåEé ëU@‹U>Ë  0U 0ée 0æN 0ã4 0à 0Ý÷ 0ÚÔ 0×® 0Ô…! 0CY" 0ל" 0Ôs# 0ÑG$ 0Î% 0Ëæ% 0ȱ& 0Åy' 0À>( 0@þ(b>) 0ÔF) 0Ñ* 0Îë* 0˹+ 0È„, 0ÅL- 0Â. 0½Ó. 00/ 0<À/ 0¾ü/ 0>º0 0vø0 0`n1 0`Î1 0`.2 0`Ž2 0`î2 08N3 0Ò†3 02X4 0üŠ4 0:†5 0YÀ5 0_6 0 x6 0j‚7 0„ì8 B*p: D/š: 0„É: D/M< 0Î|< 06J= 0€= 0ëˆ> 0:s? 0^­? 0< @ BG@ 1ed@ 0¤É@ D5mA D-¢A 0KÏAU6B ASPBÆ£B 0¤iC 0D D A«QDU*üD 1u&E 72›E›E#ÍE„ðGðGðGðGðGðGtL˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»ª„—-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularš‚,-ing|ˤ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(#Ã$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‹6Times New Roman Regular úÝ ƒRúQ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôà­ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔCNA€has€not€raised€herein€the€issue€of€whether€the€amendment€was€filed€so€late€that€it€should€not€be€allowed.€Ð ° ÐIt€is€important€to€note€that€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03€contains€no€time€limitation€for€seeking€amendment€to€a€pleading.€€Tenn.Ð tÄ ÐR.€Civ.€P.€15.01,€however,€allows€a€party€to€amend€the€pleadings:€(1)€once€as€a€matter€of€course€at€any€time€before€aÐ 8ˆ Ðresponsive€pleading€is€served;€and€(2)€within€15€days€after€a€pleading€is€served€if€the€pleading€is€one€to€which€noÐ üL Ðresponsive€pleading€is€permitted€and€the€action€has€not€been€set€for€trial.€€Otherwise,€a€party€may€amend€a€pleading€onlyÐ À Ðby€written€consent€of€the€adverse€party€or€by€leave€of€the€court,€which€ð ðshall€be€freely€given€as€justice€so€requires.ðð€Ð „Ô ÐTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.01.€€In€this€case,€Ms.€Vincent€sought€to€amend€her€complaint€and€substitute€parties€nearly€eighteen€Ð H ˜ Ðmonths€after€the€filing€of€her€complaint.€€However,€because€a€motion€to€dismiss€is€not€a€responsive€pleading,€the€filingÐ  \ Ðof€a€pre„answer€motion€to€dismiss€by€CNA€did€not€cut€off€Ms.€Vincentððs€right€to€amend€her€complaint€once€as€a€matterÐ Ð  Ðof€course.€€òòSee€Adams€v.€Carter€County€Mem.€Hosp.óó,€548€S.W.2d€307,€309€(Tenn.€1977);€òòMcBurney€v.€Aldrichóó,€816Ð ” ä  ÐS.W.2d€30,€33€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€€Further,€we€note€that€CNA€has€not€argued€that€the€delay€prejudiced€Ms.€GibsonððsÐ X ¨  Ðdefense.€€Additionally,€CNAððs€motion€to€dismiss€was€filed€almost€seventeen€months€after€the€lawsuit€was€initiated. –Ý ƒRúQ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôà­ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03€has€been€construed€by€Tennessee€courts€consistently€with€federal€interpretation€of€€Fed.Ð ° ÐR.€Civ.€P.€15(c).€€òòSee,€e.g.,óó€òòChapman€v.€Kingóó,€572€S.W.2d€925€(Tenn.€1978);òò€Ô_ÔKarashÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔPiggottÔ_Ôóó,€530€S.W.2d€775€(Tenn.Ð tÄ Ð1975);€òòGamble€v.€Hospital€Corp.€of€Amóó.,€676€S.W.2d€340€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984);€òò6A€Charles€A.€Wright,€Et€Al.,Ð 8ˆ ÐFederal€Practice€&€Procedureòò€óóóóðð€1498.(âx-  Z‹(Times New Roman ô\  `‹&Times New Roman ýÝ ƒRúQ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôà­ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€word€ð ðuninsuredðð€appearing€in€the€order€is€simply€a€misstatement,€and€the€trial€òòóóclearly€meant€€ð ðinsured.ðð*+ ÿÿ(_26Ô2ÔÔ3  Ôà..à*G+M ÿÿ(_25Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*D+M ÿÿ(_24Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*A+M ÿÿ(_23Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>+M ÿÿ(_22Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;+M ÿÿ(_21Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8+M ÿÿ(_20Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5+M ÿÿ(_19Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*2+M ÿÿ(_18Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó* ÿÿ(_17Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô€*GM ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*DM ÿÿ(_15Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*AM ÿÿ(_14Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>M ÿÿ(_13Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;M ÿÿ(_12Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8M ÿÿ(_11Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5M ÿÿ(_10Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(2M ÿÿ&_9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó( ÿÿ&_8Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô- ù-(GM ÿÿ&_7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(DM ÿÿ&_6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(AM ÿÿ&_5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(>M ÿÿ&_4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(;M ÿÿ&_3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(8M ÿÿ&_2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(5M ÿÿ&_1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó&2M ÿÿ$_Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó0ÿÿ.Normal<ÿÿ:Definition T<AAÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó(''ÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ  Ô(ÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ‡ôôôÔ(ÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó8MMÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡\<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡\<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔó ó<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡\<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/Ó<š®ÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó7€L(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡b%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7Ó&ÿÿ  d dK)1dxd<š®ÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ7€N(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡b%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓK)2dxd0KSÿÿ.SampleÔK‡\<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡\<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ(|G2úQ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Y…»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôà­ò»»Ô4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó: ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô d$%&'()*+ ÿÿ35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(|3‡$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Y…»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó<þ6X9`(‹Courier New^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Y…»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK%ä2¼A`‹Arial3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)ci) Ý ƒRúQ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôà­ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAt€the€time€the€lawsuit€was€filed,€the€correct€name€for€the€insurance€company€was€Continental€InsuranceÐ ° ÐCompany.€€Since€the€lawsuit€has€been€filed,€the€name€of€the€company€has€changed€to€Encompass€Insurance.€€Both€partiesÐ tÄ Ðrefer€to€the€insurance€company€as€CNA€at€the€trial€court€level€and€on€appeal€and,€in€order€to€maintain€consistency,€weÐ 8ˆ Ðwill€also. zÝ ƒRúQ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôà­ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note€that€the€court€in€òòSmithóó€did€not€hold€that€notice€can€never€be€imputed.€€The€plaintiff€relied€on€theÐ ° Ðknowledge€of€one€or€more€ð ðagents.ðð€€One€of€those€alleged€agents€was€the€attorney€who€had€been€counsel€of€record€forÐ tÄ Ðthe€original€defendant€entity€as€well€as€present€counsel€for€the€partnership€plaintiff€sought€to€add.€€The€court€did€not€holdÐ 8ˆ Ðthat€knowledge€by€a€partyððs€attorney€could€not€be€imputed.€€Instead,€it€held€that€the€record€showed€that€the€firstÐ üL Ðappearance€by€the€attorney€at€issue€was€made€two€months€after€the€statute€of€limitations€(then€the€deadline€for€notice)€Ð À Ðran€and,€thus,€the€facts€did€not€demonstrate€that€the€requirements€of€the€rule€had€been€met.€€776€S.W.2d€at€110.€€FederalÐ „Ô Ðcourts€have€held€that€constructive€or€imputed€notice€will€suffice.€€òòSingletary€v.€Pennsylvania€Depððt€of€Corr.óó,€266€F.3d€Ð H ˜ Ð186,€195„96€(3d€Cir.€2001). Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Y…»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼Y…»»»ÔÑ8€ ™XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îZtY…ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Y…»îîZt #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓMarch€20,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X ™X»¼Y…ÔÌò òÔ#†¼Y…»XX ™ó#ÔÔ_ÔJERIÔ_Ô€VINCENT€v.€CNA€INSURANCE€COMPANYÔ‡X ™X»¼Y…Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Williamson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€11„01410€€€€€€Russ€Ô_ÔHeldmanÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„02213„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R9„CV€„€Filed€December€23,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓAfter€being€injured€in€an€auto€accident,€Ô_ÔJeriÔ_Ô€Vincent€entered€into€negotiations€with€CNA€InsuranceÐ xÈ  ÐCompany,€the€insurer€of€the€driver€of€the€other€vehicle,€attempting€to€settle€her€property€damage€andÐ d´ Ðpersonal€injury€claim.€The€property€damage€claim€was€settled.€€Ms.€Vincent€filed€a€civil€actionÐ P  Ðagainst€CNA€Insurance€to€protect€her€personal€injury€claim€from€the€statute€of€limitations.€€Later,Ð <Œ ÐMs.€Vincent€filed€a€motion€to€substitute€a€party€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03€in€order€to€nameÐ (x Ðthe€driver€of€the€other€vehicle€as€the€defendant.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion€and€dismissed€theÐ d Ðcause€of€action.€€We€reverse€and€remand€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€because€we€find€that€Ms.Ð P ÐVincent€complied€with€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03.Ð ì< ÐÓßÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€9€Interlocutory€Appeal;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€CourtÐ Ä ÐReversed€and€Remandedó óÐ ° ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Y…»àX ™~#ÔÔ‡X ™X.¼Y…ÔPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòBen€H.€Ô_ÔCantrellÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€M.S.,óóÐ ˆØ Ðand€òòHamilton€V.€Ô_ÔGaydenÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€Sp.€J.óó,€joined.Ð tÄ ÐÌKeith€Jordan,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Ô_ÔJeriÔ_Ô€Vincent.Ð L œ ÐÌNancy€Williams€Phillips,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€CNA€Insurance€Company.Ð $"t! ÐÓG Óò òÌOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Y…»XX ™v #ÔÔ‡X ™X»¼Y…ÔÐ ü#L# ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Y…»XX ™å #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X ™X»¼Y…ÔÔ‡X ™XXX ™Ôà  àOn€January€16,€1999,€Ô_ÔJeriÔ_Ô€Vincent€was€injured€in€a€two€car€motor€vehicle€accident€when€herÐ Ô%$!% Ðcar€was€struck€by€an€automobile€driven€by€Donna€F.€Gibson.€€Ms.€Gibson€was€insured€by€CNAÐ À&"& ÐInsurance€Company€(ð ðCNAðð).Ô#†X ™XXX ™n #Ô׃f×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ¬'ü"' ÐÐ ˜(è#(ý÷ ÐÔ_Ôà  àMs.€Vincent€had€no€further€contact€with€Ms.€Gibson€after€the€collision.€€Ms.€Vincent€wasÐ ° Ðcontacted€by€an€adjuster€for€CNA,€who€expressed€regret€for€the€accident,€accepted€financialÐ œì Ðresponsibility€for€her€damages,€and€paid€for€the€repair€costs€to€her€Nissan€Altima.€€Ms.€Vincent€wasÐ ˆØ Ðtreated€for€what€was€initially€thought€to€be€a€soft€tissue€injury,€but€eventually€discovered€she€had€aÐ tÄ Ðruptured€cervical€disc;€she€intended€to€settle€her€personal€injury€claim€directly€with€the€insuranceÐ `° Ðcarrier€without€litigation€or€legal€representation.€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àIn€December€1999,€Ms.€Vincent€was€informed€by€CNA€adjuster€Robert€Webb€that€sheÐ $ t Ðneeded€to€file€an€action€before€January€16,€2000,€in€order€to€keep€her€claim€alive.€€On€January€14,Ð  ` Ð2000,€Ms.€Vincent€filed€a€òòpro€se€óócivil€action€in€Williamson€County€General€Sessions€Court€whichÐ ü L  Ðlisted€CNA€as€the€defendant.€€The€civil€action€was€brought€for€ð ðprotection€of€the€statute€of€one€yearÐ è 8  Ðfor€bodily€injury€and/or€personal€injury€sustained€as€a€result€of€a€mva€on€1„16„99.ðð€€It€also€stated€thatÐ Ô$  Ðð ðfurther€evaluation€of€injuries€are€in€process.ðð€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àCNA€was€served€on€February€3,€2000òò.€€óóMs.€Vincent€spoke€with€Julie€Salyers,€a€litigationÐ ˜è  Ðspecialist€independently€contracted€by€the€insurance€company,€about€her€claim.€€On€or€aboutÐ „Ô  ÐFebruary€21,€2000,€Ms.€Gibson€was€informed€of€the€lawsuit€filed€by€Ms.€Vincent€against€CNA€byÐ pÀ ÐWarren€Tucker,€a€CNA€claims€representative.€€òòò òÐ \¬ Ðà  àÌà  àóóó óOn€June€4,€2001,€CNA€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€or€in€the€alternative€to€set€for€trial.€€UponÐ 4„ Ðreceipt€of€that€motion,€Ms.€Vincent€hired€counsel.€€The€action€was€transferred€to€the€WilliamsonÐ  p ÐCounty€Circuit€Court€by€agreement€of€the€parties.€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àOn€July€25,€2001,€Ms.€Vincent€filed€a€motion€to€substitute€a€party€by€changing€the€namedÐ ä4 Ðdefendant€to€Ms.€Gibson€rather€than€CNA.€€The€motion€to€amend€was€denied€by€the€trial€court,Ð Ð  Ðwhich€based€its€holding€on€òòSmith€v.€Southeastern€Properties,€Ltd.óó,€776€S.W.2d€106€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ¼  Ð1999).€€The€trial€court€stated:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àThis€case€[òòSmithóó]€also€contains€the€following€language:€ððin€the€context€of€litigationÐ €Ð Ðneither€an€insurance€company€nor€persons€employed€by€it€are€agents€of€theÐ l¼ Ðuninsured.ðð׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòIdóó.€at€110.€€Accordingly,€statements€made€to€Plaintiff€[Jeri€Vincent]€byÐ X ¨ Ðthe€adjuster€will€not€sustain€the€relation€back€of€Plaintiffððs€claim€against€the€allegedÐ D!” Ðtortfeasor,€Donna€F.€Gibson,€under€T.R.C.P.€15.03.€€This€result€on€its€face€mayÐ 0"€  Ðappear€grossly€inequitable€to€Plaintiff€since€it€is€undisputed€that€in€January€1999€theÐ #l! Ðadjuster€for€Defendant€ððassured€[her]€that€his€employer€was€accepting€financialÐ $X" Ðresponsibility€for€the€injuries€caused€by€the€negligence€of€its€insured,€Donna€F.Ð ô$D # ÐGibson.ðð€€Therefore,€the€Court€grants€Plaintiff€permission€to€take€a€T.R.A.P.€9€appealÐ à%0!$ Ðof€this€order€to€the€Tennessee€Court€of€Appeals,€Rule€9(a)(2)€criteria€beingÐ Ì&"% Ðapplicable.и'#&Ð Ð  Ðâ âÐ ¤(ô#' Ðà  àThis€court€subsequently€entered€an€order€that€granted€Ms.€Vincentððs€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€RuleÐ ° Ðâ â9€application,€limiting€the€issue€on€appeal€to€whether€or€not€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€Ms.Ð œì ÐVincentððs€motion€to€substitute€a€party€and€staying€any€further€trial€court€proceedings.€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àGenerally,€a€review€of€a€denial€to€amend€pleadings€is€governed€by€the€abuse€of€discretionÐ `° Ðstandard€of€review.€€òòHenderson€v.€Bush€Bros.€&€Co.óó,€868€S.W.2d€236,€237„38€(Tenn.€1993).€€Ð L œ ÐReversal€is€appropriate€where€the€trial€court€applies€an€incorrect€legal€standard€or€reaches€a€decisionÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€causes€an€injustice€to€the€party€complaining.€Ô‡X ™XXX ™Ô€òòÔ#†X ™XXX ™ #ÔEldridge€v.€Eldridgeóó,€42€S.W.3d€82,€85€(Tenn.Ð $ t Ð2001);òò€Ballard€v.€Herzkeóó,€924€S.W.2d€652,€661€(Tenn.€1996).Ô‡X ™XXX ™ÔÐ  ` ÐÌÓ  ÓI.€€Relation€Back€of€AmendmentsÔ#†X ™XXX ™ë #ÔÐ è 8  ÐÓ !ÓÔ‡X ™XXX ™ÔÌà  àMs.€Vincent€attempted€to€change€defendants€in€the€lawsuit€she€filed€against€CNA€and€arguesÐ À  Ðthat€the€relation„back€provisions€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03Ô#†X ™XXX ™“!#ÔÔ‡X ™XXX ™Ô€should€apply€to€save€her€claim€against€Ms.Ð ¬ü  ÐGibson€from€the€statute€of€limitations.€€The€relevant€section€provides:Ð ˜è  ÐÔ#†X ™XXX ™Œ"#ÔÔ‡X ™XXX ™ÔÌà8  àWhenever€the€claim€or€defense€asserted€in€amended€pleadings€arose€out€of€theÐ pÀ Ðconduct,€transaction,€or€occurrence€set€forth€or€attempted€to€be€set€forth€in€theÐ \¬ Ðoriginal€pleading,€the€amendment€relates€back€to€the€date€of€the€original€pleading.€Ð H˜ ÐAn€amendment€changing€the€party€or€the€naming€of€the€party€by€or€against€whom€aÐ 4„ Ðclaim€is€asserted€relates€back€if€the€foregoing€provision€is€satisfied€and€if,€within€theÐ  p Ðperiod€provided€by€law€for€commencing€an€action€or€within€120€days€afterÐ  \ Ðcommencement€of€the€action,€the€party€to€be€brought€in€by€amendment€(1)€hasÐ øH Ðreceived€such€notice€of€the€institution€of€the€action€that€the€party€will€not€beÐ ä4 Ðprejudiced€in€maintaining€a€defense€on€the€merits,€and€(2)€knew€or€should€haveÐ Ð  Ðknown€that,€but€for€a€mistake€concerning€the€identity€of€the€proper€party,€the€actionÐ ¼  Ðwould€have€been€brought€against€the€party.€€Ð¨øÐ Ð  ÐÌTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03.Ô#†X ™XXX ™j##ÔÔ‡X ™XXX ™ÔÐ €Ð ÐÌà  àMs.€Vincentððs€attempted€amendment€herein€is€covered€by€the€second€sentence€of€Tenn.€R.Ð X ¨ ÐCiv.€P.€15.03.€€ð ðChangingðð€a€party€includes€adding,€dropping€or€substituting€a€party.Ô#†X ™XXX ™ (#Ô€€òò6A€CharlesÐ D!” ÐA.€Wright,€et€al.,€Federal€Practice€&€Procedureòò€óóóóðð€1498€(2d€ed.€1990).€€When€the€amendmentÐ 0"€  Ðseeks€to€change€a€party€to€the€lawsuit,€the€claim€asserted€by€or€against€that€new€party€will€beÐ #l! Ðconsidered€filed€on€the€date€of€the€original€pleading€when€the€requirements€of€the€rule€are€met.€Ð $X" ÐòòDoyle€v.€Frostóó,€49€S.W.3d€853,€856€(Tenn.€2001).Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àð ðThe€goal€behind€Rule€15,€as€with€all€the€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€is€ððto€insure€that€casesÐ Ì&"% Ðand€controversies€be€determined€upon€their€merits€and€not€upon€legal€technicalities€or€proceduralÐ ¸'#& Ðniceties.ðððð€òòDoyleóó,€49€S.W.3d€at€856€(quoting€òòKarash€v.€Pigottóó,€530€S.€W.€775,€777€(Tenn.€1975)).€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐThus,€Ô‡X ™XXX ™ÔTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03€is€construed€liberally€in€order€to€promote€the€consideration€of€claimsÐ )à$( Ðâ âon€their€merits.€€òòFloyd€v.€Rentropóó,€675€S.W.2d€165,€168€(Tenn.€1984);€òòTownes€v.€Sunbeam€OsterÐ |*Ì%) ÐCo.,€Inc.óó,€50€S.W.3d€446,€451€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001);òò€€McCracken€Ô#†X ™XXX ™•,#Ôv.€Brentwood€United€MethodistÐ ° ÐChurchóó,€958€S.W.2d€792,€797€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).òòóó€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àThe€principal€purpose€of€Rule€15.03€is€ð ðto€enable€a€plaintiff€to€correct€a€pleading€error€afterÐ tÄ Ðthe€statute€of€limitations€has€run€if€the€correction€will€not€prejudice€his€adversary€in€any€way.ðð€Ð `° ÐòòDoyleóó,€49€S.W.3d€at€856„57€(quoting€òòSchiavone€v.€Fortuneóó,€477€U.S.€21,€38,€106€S.€Ct.€2379,€2389Ð L œ Ð(1986)€(Stevens,€J.€dissenting))Ô‡X ™XXX ™Ô.Ô#†X ™XXX ™B0#ÔÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àMs.€Vincentððs€amendment€will€relate€back€to€the€date€she€originally€filed€the€lawsuit€if:€(1)Ð  ` Ðthe€claim€arose€out€of€the€same€conduct,€transaction,€or€occurrence€as€that€of€the€original€complaint;Ð ü L  Ð(2)€€notice€was€received€by€Ms.€Gibson€either€within€the€statute€of€limitations€or€one€hundred€twentyÐ è 8  Ð(120)€days€thereafter;€(3)€Ms.€Gibson€is€not€prejudiced€in€maintaining€a€defense€by€the€delay€inÐ Ô$  Ðnaming€her;€and€(4)€Ms.€Gibson€either€knew€or€should€have€known€she€would€have€been€sued€hadÐ À  Ðit€not€been€for€the€mistake.€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThere€is€no€dispute€that€the€claim€or€defense€to€be€asserted€by€Ms.€Vincent€in€the€amendedÐ „Ô  Ðpleadings€arises€out€of€the€same€occurrence,€the€automobile€accident,€as€that€of€the€original€civilÐ pÀ Ðwarrant€she€filed€in€General€Sessions€Court€in€January€of€1999.€€The€question€is€whether€the€otherÐ \¬ Ðrequirements€are€met.Ô‡X ™XXX ™Ô€Ð H˜ ÐÌÓ  ÓII.€€Sufficiency€of€Notice€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03Ð  p ÐÓß4ÓÌà  àÔ#†X ™XXX ™©4#ÔUnder€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03,€the€party€to€be€added€must€be€given€notice€of€the€lawsuitÐ øH Ðwithin€the€statute€of€limitations€or€within€120€days€after€commencement€of€the€lawsuit.€€Notice€inÐ ä4 Ðthe€context€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03€means€notice€of€the€lawsuit,€not€notice€of€the€underlying€injuryÐ Ð  Ðsuffered€by€the€plaintiff.€€òòSmithóó,€776€S.W.2d€at€109;€òòMcCrackenóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€798.€€Notice€mayÐ ¼  Ðbe€formal€or€informal,€and€does€not€require€service€of€the€complaint€upon€the€party€affected€by€theÐ ¨ø Ðamendment.€€òòMcCrackenóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€797.Ô‡X ™XXX ™ÔÐ ”ä ÐÌà8  àUnofficial,€informal€notice€that€a€lawsuit€has€been€filed€coupled€with€knowledge€ofÐ l¼ Ðthe€facts€on€which€the€lawsuit€is€based€may€suffice€as€long€as€the€ruleððs€otherÐ X ¨ Ðrequirements€are€satisfied.€€ÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐÌòòIdóó.€at€798.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€herein€based€its€decision€on€òòSmith€v.€Southeastern€Properties,€Ltd.óó,€776Ð ô$D # ÐS.W.2d€106€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).€€In€òòSmithóó,Ô#†X ™XXX ™ü7#Ô€the€plaintiff€attempted€to€establish€notice€of€a€lawsuit,Ð à%0!$ Ðcontrary€to€the€sworn€affidavits€of€the€parties€to€be€added€that€they€were€unaware€of€the€claim€untilÐ Ì&"% Ðafter€the€applicable€time€limit,€by€imputing€notice€based€on€a€alleged€agency€relationship.€€TheÐ ¸'#& Ðlawsuit€involved€the€death€of€a€young€boy€in€an€apartment€swimming€pool.€€The€amendment€at€issueÐ ¤(ô#' Ðsought€to€add€the€limited€partnership€which€was€the€owner€of€the€apartment€complex€at€the€time€ofÐ )à$( Ðthe€incident€and€its€general€and€limited€partners.€€The€insurer€of€the€entity€named€in€the€originalÐ |*Ì%) Ðcomplaint€had€hired€an€independent€insurance€adjuster€to€investigate€the€boyððs€death.€€He€sent€a€copyÐ h+¸&* Ðof€the€plaintiffððs€notice€letter€to€the€insurer€and€to€its€attorney.€€He€identified€the€insured€as€theÐ ° Ðpartnership€which€was€the€subject€of€the€later€amendment.€€However,€the€adjuster/investigator€neverÐ œì Ðhad€contact€with€the€partnership€entity.€€There€was€no€evidence€that€the€parties€to€be€added€had€hiredÐ ˆØ Ðthe€adjuster€or€the€attorney€or€that€they€even€knew€either€of€them.€€The€plaintiff€argued€that€noticeÐ tÄ Ðof€the€lawsuit€to€the€insurer€of€the€original€defendant€should€have€been€imputed€to€the€generalÐ `° Ðpartnership€and€its€parties.€€This€court€disagreed,€stating€ð ðWhile€we€find€no€case€law€on€this€pointÐ L œ Ðfrom€Tennessee,€it€has€been€held€that€in€the€context€of€litigation€neither€an€insurance€company€norÐ 8 ˆ Ðpersons€employed€by€it€are€agents€of€the€insured.ðð€€òòSmithóó,€776€S.W.2d€at€110€(citing€òòAttleboro€Mfg.Ð $ t ÐCo.€v.€Frankfort€Marine,€Accident€&€Plate€Glass€Ins.€Co.óó,€240€F.€573,€581„82€(1st€Cir.€1917)).Ô‡X ™XXX ™ÔÐ  ` ÐÌà  àThe€òòSmithóó€opinion€continues€to€stand€for€the€proposition€that€notice€to€the€party€to€be€addedÐ è 8  Ðcannot€be€imputed€simply€from€notice€to€the€partyððs€insurance€company.€òò€McCrackenóó,€958€S.W.2dÐ Ô$  Ðat€797.€€However,€there€is€an€important€distinction€between€òòSmithóó€and€this€case.€€In€òòSmithóó,€theÐ À  Ðadjuster€for€the€insurance€company€had€no€contact€whatsoever€with€the€party€to€be€added€by€theÐ ¬ü  Ðamendment,€and€there€was€no€proof€that€the€partyððs€insurer€had€provided€notice€to€the€party.€€TheÐ ˜è  Ðplaintiff€in€òòSmithóó€did€not€allege€the€parties€to€be€added€had€actual€knowledge€or€notice€of€the€originalÐ „Ô  Ðlawsuit€and€attempted€to€rely€on€the€knowledge€of€one€or€more€alleged€ð ðagents.ðð€€Herein,€CNAÐ pÀ Ðconcedes€that€Warren€Tucker,€its€agent,€informed€Ms.€Gibson€of€the€lawsuit€brought€by€Ms.€VincentÐ \¬ Ðon€February€21,€2000,€only€thirty„five€(35)€days€after€Ms.€Vincent€filed€her€action.€€Thus,€it€isÐ H˜ Ðundisputed€that€Ms.€Gibson€received€actual€notice€of€the€lawsuit,€and€questions€of€imputing€noticeÐ 4„ Ðthrough€agency€are€not€present.׃g×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€ò òó óÐ  p ÐÌà  àIn€òòMcCrackenóó,€this€court€held€that€a€phone€call€from€a€reporter€to€a€churchððs€senior€pastorÐ øH Ðsatisfied€the€notice€requirements€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03.€€In€that€case,€the€plaintiffs€had€originallyÐ ä4 Ðmistakenly€sued€the€church€foundation€and€attempted€to€amend€by€adding€the€church€itself.€€AfterÐ Ð  Ðconcluding€that€notice€to€the€senior€pastor€was€notice€to€the€church,€the€court€found€the€followingÐ ¼  Ðimportant€in€deciding€the€sufficiency€of€the€notice:€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àThe€senior€pastor€conceded€that€he€was€aware€that€Ms.€McCracken€had€fallen€at€theÐ €Ð Ðchurch,€and€he€specifically€recalled€that€the€newspaper€reporter€asked€questionsÐ l¼ Ðrelating€to€the€newly€filed€lawsuit.€€Even€though€the€telephone€call€was€not€in€writing,Ð X ¨ Ðit€provided€the€senior€pastor€with€actual€notice€that€the€McCrackens€had€filed€aÐ D!” Ðlawsuit€against€the€church€seeking€damages€for€the€injuries€stemming€from€Ms.Ð 0"€  ÐMcCrackenððs€fall.Ð#l!Ð Ð  ÐÐ $X" ÐòòMcCrackenóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€797„98.€€Federal€courts€have€similarly€held€informal€notice€is€sufficient.Ð ° ÐÌà8  àFirst,€Rule€15(c)(3)€notice€does€not€require€actual€service€of€process€on€the€partyÐ ˆØ Ðsought€to€be€added;€notice€may€be€deemed€to€have€occurred€when€a€party€who€hasÐ tÄ Ðsome€reason€to€expect€his€potential€involvement€as€a€defendant€hears€of€theÐ `° Ðcommencement€of€litigation€through€some€informal€means.€€òòSee€Varlack€v.€SWCÐ L œ ÐCaribbean,€Incóó.,€550€F.2d€171,€175€(3d€Cir.€1977)€(holding€that€a€person€who€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðplaintiff€sought€to€add€as€a€defendant€had€adequate€notice€under€15(c)(3)€when,Ð $ t Ðwithin€the€relevant€period,€the€person€by€happenstance€saw€a€copy€of€the€complaintÐ  ` Ðnaming€both€the€place€where€he€worked€and€an€ð ðunknown€employeeðð€as€a€defendant,Ð ü L  Ðwhich€he€knew€referred€to€him);€òòsee€also€Berndt€v.€Tennesseeóó,€796€F.2d€879,€884€(6thÐ è 8  ÐCir.€1986)€(notice€need€not€be€formal);€òòEakins€v.€Reedóó,€710€F.2d€184,€187„88€(4thÐ Ô$  ÐCir.€1983)€(same);€òòKirk€v.€Cronvichóó,€629€F.2d€404,€407„08€(5th€Cir.€1980)€(same).€Ð À  ÐAt€the€same€time,€the€notice€received€must€be€more€than€notice€of€the€event€that€gaveÐ ¬ü  Ðrise€to€the€cause€of€action;€it€must€be€notice€that€the€plaintiff€has€instituted€the€action.€Ð ˜è  ÐòòSee€Bechtel€v.€Robinsonóó,€886€F.2d€644,€652€n.12€(3d€Cir.€1989).Ð„Ô Ð Ð  ÐÌòòSingletary€v.€Pennsylvania€Depððt€of€Corróó.,€266€F.3d€186,€195€(3d€Cir.€2001).Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àIf€a€telephone€call€from€a€reporter€unrelated€to€either€the€plaintiff€or€the€defendant€isÐ 4„ Ðsufficient€to€provide€notice,€certainly€a€telephone€call€from€an€insurance€company€which€has€beenÐ  p Ðhandling€the€claim€to€its€insured€is€also€sufficient.€€The€type€of€notice€required€is€ð ðfair€notice€that€aÐ  \ Ðlegal€claim€existed€in,€and€was€in€effect€being€asserted€byðð€plaintiff.€€òòSmithóó,€776€S.W.2d€at€109Ð øH Ð(citing€òòWilliams€v.€United€Statesóó,€405€F.2d€234,€236„38€(5th€Cir.€1968)).Ð ä4 ÐÌÔ#†X ™XXX ™šA#ÔÔ‡X ™XXX ™Ôà  àCNA€maintains€that€the€notice€did€not€meet€the€time€requirements€in€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03.€Ð ¼  ÐThe€argument€is€that€Ms.€Gibson€did€not€receive€notice€before€the€expiration€of€the€statute€ofÐ ¨ø Ðlimitations€and€that€the€amendment€was€not€filed€within€120€days€of€the€filing€of€the€complaint.€Ð ”ä ÐWhile€both€those€statements€are€factually€correct,€we€cannot€agree€that€either€disqualifies€theÐ €Ð Ðproffered€amendment€from€relating€back€to€the€original€complaint.€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€language€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03€is€clear€as€to€the€time€requirement€placed€on€noticeÐ D!” Ðto€the€party€to€be€added:€ð ðwithin€the€period€provided€by€law€for€commencing€an€action€or€within€120Ð 0"€  Ðdays€after€commencement€of€the€action.ðð€€Ô#†X ™XXX ™×T#ÔThe€provision€allowing€notice€within€120€days€of€the€filingÐ #l! Ðof€the€action€was€added€to€the€language€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03€in€1995€to€incorporate€ð ðlanguageÐ $X" Ðsimilar€to€that€adopted€in€the€federal€version€to€change€the€unfortunate€result€of€decisions€such€asÐ ô$D # ÐòòSchiavone€v.€Fortuneóó,€477€U.S.€21,€106€S.€Ct.€2379€(1986).ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03€AdvisoryÐ à%0!$ ÐCommission€Comment€(1995).€€Prior€to€the€1995€amendment,€a€party€seeking€to€amend€a€pleadingÐ Ì&"% Ðto€change€a€party€was€required€to€prove€notice€was€had€by€the€party€to€be€added€prior€to€theÐ ¸'#& Ðexpiration€of€the€statute€of€limitations.€€The€1995€amendment€obviously€changed€that€result,€as€wasÐ ¤(ô#' Ðintended.€€We€note€that€in€òòDoyleóó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€found€sufficient€Ô‡X ™XXX ™Ônotice€that€wasÐ )à$( Ðgiven€118€days€after€the€filing€of€the€complaint,€where€the€complaint€had€been€filed€only€five€daysÐ |*Ì%) Ðbefore€the€statute€of€limitations€period€expired.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àCNAððs€second€argument€regarding€timeliness€is€that€Rule€15.03€requires€that€the€ð ðrelationÐ ° Ðback€amendment€be€requested€no€more€than€120€days€after€the€commencement€of€the€action.ðð€€ThatÐ œì Ðproposition€appears€nowhere€in€the€language€of€the€rule.€€To€the€contrary,€the€120€days€clearly€refersÐ ˆØ Ðto€notice€to€the€party€to€be€brought€in€by€amendment.Ô#†X ™XXX ™Ú[#ÔÔ‡X ™XXX ™Ô׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†X ™XXX ™¥^#ÔÔ‡X ™XXX ™ÔÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àThus,€we€find€that€Ms.€Gibson€had€actual€notice€of€the€lawsuit€filed€by€Ms.€Vincent€withinÐ L œ Ðthe€time€provided€by€the€rule.€€Timely€notice€is€not€all€that€is€required,€however,€because€€Tenn.€R.Ð 8 ˆ ÐCiv.€P.€15.03Ô#†X ™XXX ™:_#ÔÔ‡X ™XXX ™Ô€requires€that€the€party€to€be€added€receive€such€notice€that€he€or€she€will€not€beÐ $ t Ðprejudiced€in€maintaining€a€defense€on€the€merits.€€As€to€that€requirement,€this€court€stated€inÐ  ` ÐòòMcCrackenóó:Ô#†X ™XXX ™”`#ÔÔ‡X ™XXX ™ÔÐ ü L  ÐÌà8  àThe€church€was€not€prejudiced€in€defending€against€the€suit€because€it€knew€aboutÐ Ô$  ÐMs.€McCrackenððs€fall€as€soon€as€it€happened.€€It€also€knew€that€its€insurer€had€beenÐ À  Ðnegotiating€a€settlement€with€the€McCrackensðð€lawyer€for€quite€some€time.€€Finally,Ð ¬ü  Ðthe€church€knew€that€the€McCrackens€were€looking€to€the€church€for€damages€andÐ ˜è  Ð.€.€.€that€the€McCrackensðð€lawyer€had€mistakenly€named€the€foundation€as€a€defendantÐ „Ô  Ðrather€than€the€church.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌòòMcCrackenóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€798.Ð H˜ ÐÓ  ÓÌÓdÓà  àSimilar€facts€in€the€case€before€us€compel€the€conclusion€that€Ô#†X ™XXX ™Ãa#ÔÔ‡X ™XXX ™ÔMs.€Gibson€would€not€beÐ  p Ðprejudiced€in€this€case.€€Ms.€Gibson€was€well€aware€of€the€accident€at€the€time€it€happened.€€CNAÐ  \ Ðhad€already€settled€the€property€damage€portion€of€Ms.€Vincentððs€claim,€apparently€admittingÐ øH Ðliability€for€its€insured,€Ms.€Gibson,€and€had€been€in€active€negotiations€regarding€the€personal€injuryÐ ä4 Ðclaim.€€In€fact,€it€seems€that€the€only€portion€of€the€claim€which€was€not€successfully€negotiatedÐ Ð  Ðbefore€the€statute€of€limitations€ran€was€the€amount€of€personal€injury€damages€sustained€by€Ms.Ð ¼  ÐVincent.€€It€remains€undisputed,€as€the€trial€court€found,€that€an€adjuster€from€CNA€ð ðassured€[Ms.Ð ¨ø ÐVincent]€that€his€employer€was€accepting€financial€responsibility€for€the€injuries€caused€by€theÐ ”ä Ðnegligence€of€its€insured,€Donna€F.€Gibson.ðð€€It€appears€that€CNA€undertook€to€represent€Ms.Ð €Ð ÐGibsonððs€interest€with€regard€to€the€claim€by€Ms.€Vincent.€Ð l¼ Ðâ âÐ X ¨ Ðà  àThe€record€indicates€that€CNA€appeared€through€its€attorney€in€the€trial€court€to€oppose€theÐ ° Ðâ âmotion€to€amend€by€substituting€parties.€€CNA€has€filed€a€brief€in€this€appeal€for€the€same€purpose.€Ð œì ÐSince€CNA€has€undertaken€to€represent€Ms.€Gibsonððs€interests€in€this€matter,€CNA€would€have€aÐ ˆØ Ðdifficult€time€in€claiming,€and€in€fact€does€not€attempt€to€claim,€that€its€defense€of€the€personal€injuryÐ tÄ Ðclaim€has€been€prejudiced.€€In€addition,€CNA€Ô#†X ™XXX ™ e#ÔÔ‡X ™XXX ™Ômakes€no€assertion€on€appeal€that€Ms.€Gibson€wouldÐ `° Ðbe€prejudiced€in€defending€Ms.€Vincentððs€claim€because€of€some€deficiency€in€the€notice€or€timingÐ L œ Ðthereof€that€she€received.€€Merely€having€to€defend€the€lawsuit€does€not€constitute€prejudice€so€asÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€preclude€the€relation€back€of€an€amendment€adding€a€party.€€Ô#†X ™XXX ™Âk#ÔÔ‡X ™XXX ™ÔòòSee€Osborne€Enters.€v.€City€ofÐ $ t ÐChattanoogaóó,€561€S.W.2d€160,€164€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1977).Ð  ` ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€that€Ms.€Vincent€has€met€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03€regarding€Ð è 8  Ðnotice€to€the€party€to€be€added€with€regard€to€time,€sufficiency,€and€lack€of€prejudice.Ð Ô$  ÐÔ#†X ™XXX ™{m#ÔÔ‡X ™XXX ™ÔÌÓ  ÓIII.€€Knowledge€and€MistakeÐ ¬ü  ÐÌÓKoÓà  àThe€final€requirement€is€that€the€party€to€be€brought€into€the€lawsuit€by€amendment€ð ðknewÐ „Ô  Ðor€should€have€known€that,€but€for€a€mistake€concerning€the€identity€of€the€proper€party,€the€actionÐ pÀ Ðwould€have€been€brought€against€the€party.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03.€€This€requirement€has€not€beenÐ \¬ ÐfrequentlyÔ#†X ™XXX ™+o#ÔÔ‡X ™XXX ™Ô€discussed,€as€a€separate€requirement,€by€courts€of€this€state.€€In€fact,€our€courts€have€oftenÐ H˜ Ðstated€that€notice€is€the€critical€element€in€determining€whether€amendments€relate€back€to€theÐ 4„ Ðoriginal€pleadings.€€òòFloydóó,€675€S.W.€2d€at€168;€òòSmithóó,€776€S.W.2d€at€109Ô#†X ™XXX ™6q#ÔÔ‡X ™XXX ™Ô.Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€concepts,€however,€are€not€unrelated.€€The€requirements€of€notice€and€knowledgeÐ øH Ðtogether€seek€to€prevent€the€situation€where€ð ða€person€who€has€had€no€reason€to€know€that€he€or€sheÐ ä4 Ðis€expected€to€respond€to€a€claim€will€be€brought€into€a€suitðð€after€the€time€limitations€in€the€rule.€Ð Ð  ÐTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03€Advisory€Committee€Comments.€€The€objective€of€these€and€otherÐ ¼  Ðrequirements€of€the€rule€is€to€avoid€the€application€of€the€statute€of€limitations€when€no€prejudiceÐ ¨ø Ðwould€result€to€the€party€sought€to€be€added€by€the€amendment.€€6A€òòCharles€A.€Wright,€et€al.,Ð ”ä ÐFederal€Practice€&€Procedureóó€ðð€1499.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àBoth€requirements€are€often€analyzed€together€as€in€òòMcCrackenóó,€discussed€above,€and€in€Ð X ¨ ÐòòFloyd€v.€Rentropóó,€675€S.W.2d€165€(Tenn.€1984).€€Inòò€Floydóó,€the€plaintiffs€originally€sued€Dr.€Reisser,Ð D!” Ðbelieving€he€was€the€lead€surgeon€performing€the€operation€at€issue,€but€later€sued€Dr.€Rentrop,Ð 0"€  Ðbased€on€various€records€indicating€he€performed€the€surgery,€and€nonsuited€the€claim€against€Dr.Ð #l! ÐReisser.€€Later,€the€plaintiffs€attempted€to€amend€their€amended€complaint€to€add€Dr.€Reisser,€havingÐ $X" Ðlearned€that€Dr.€Reisser€in€fact€was€the€lead€surgeon.€€After€finding€that€Dr.€Reisser€had€notice€withinÐ ô$D # Ðthe€required€time€period,€the€Supreme€Court€found:Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà8  àHe€and€Dr.€Rentrop€have€been€represented€by€the€same€counsel€in€the€case.€€UnderÐ ¸'#& Ðsuch€circumstances,€he€would€not€be€prejudiced€in€maintaining€his€defense€on€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðmerits€and€he€knew,€or€should€have€know€that,€but€for€mistake€concerning€theÐ )à$( Ðidentity€of€the€proper€party,€the€action€would€not€have€been€dismissed€as€to€him€andÐ |*Ì%) Ðinstituted€against€his€partner,€who€he€knew€did€not€perform€the€surgery€.€.€.€.€€As€toÐ h+¸&* Ðhis€knowledge€of€the€action€instituted€against€Dr.€Rentrop,€such€knowledge€will€beÐ ° Ðimputed€to€him€since€it€is€conceded€that€Dr.€Reisser€and€Dr.€Rentrop€are€partners.МìÐ Ð  ÐÌòòFloydóó,€675€S.W.2d€at€168.€€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àAlthough€not€specifically€labeled€as€such,€these€comments€implicate€another€principle€oftenÐ L œ Ðapplied€to€determine€if€an€amendment€should€relate€back:€€identity€of€interest.€6A€òòCharles€A.Ð 8 ˆ ÐWright,€et€al.,€Federal€Practice€&€ProcedureóóÔ#†X ™XXX ™´r#ÔÔ‡X ™XXX ™Ô€ðð€1499.€€Under€the€Federal€Rules€of€CivilÐ $ t ÐProcedure€which€have€the€same€requirements€for€an€amendment€to€relate€back,€federal€courts€haveÐ  ` Ðheld€that€Ô#†X ™XXX ™}}#ÔÔ‡X ™XXX ™Ôif€a€sufficient€identity€of€interest€exists€between€the€new€defendant€and€the€original€one€soÐ ü L  Ðthat€relation€back€would€not€be€prejudicial,€then€relation€back€is€proper.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Ô#†X ™XXX ™~#ÔÔ‡X ™XXX ™Ôòò€Woods€v.€Indiana€Univ.„Ð è 8  ÐPurdue€at€Indianapolisóó,€996€F.2d€880,€889€(7th€Cir.€1993);€€òòÔ#†X ™XXX ™Ñ#ÔSerrano€v.€Gonzalezóó,€909€F.2d€8,€12€(1stÐ Ô$  ÐCir.€1990).€€The€original€defendant€and€the€defendant€sought€to€be€added€have€an€identity€of€interestÐ À  Ðwhen€they€are€so€closely€related€in€business€or€other€activities€that€it€is€fair€to€presume€the€addedÐ ¬ü  Ðparties€learned€of€the€institution€of€the€action€shortly€after€it€was€commenced.€€òòWilson€v.€UnitedÐ ˜è  ÐStatesóó,€23€F.3d€559,€563€(1st€Cir.€1994)€(quoting€òòHernandez€Jimenez€v.€Calero€Toledoóó,€604€F.2d€99,Ð „Ô  Ð102„03€(1st€Cir.€1979));€òòSerranoóó,€909€F.2d€at€12.€€Ô‡X ™XXX ™ÔThis€identity€of€interest€inquiry€is€relevant€to€bothÐ pÀ Ðthe€sufficiency€of€notice,€and€particularly€the€prejudice€therefrom,€and€the€knowledge€that€the€addedÐ \¬ Ðparty€was€omitted€due€to€a€mistake.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€the€requirement€that€the€party€to€be€added€knew€or€should€have€known€that,Ð  p Ðbut€for€a€mistake,€the€action€would€have€been€brought€against€him,€ð ðthe€courts€probably€will€applyÐ  \ Ðsomething€akin€to€a€reasonableness€test€.€.€.€.€€Relation€back€will€be€refused€only€if€the€court€findsÐ øH Ðthat€there€is€no€reason€why€the€party€to€be€added€should€have€understood€that€he€was€not€named€dueÐ ä4 Ðto€a€mistake.ðð€€6A€òòCharles€A.€Wright,€et€al.,€Federal€Practice€&€ProcedureóóÔ#†X ™XXX ™ì‚#ÔÔ‡X ™XXX ™Ô€ðð€1498.€€The€testÐ Ð  Ðhas€been€described€as€whether€the€omitted€defendants,€viewed€as€reasonably€prudent€people,€oughtÐ ¼  Ðto€have€been€able€to€anticipate€or€should€have€expected€that€the€character€of€the€originally€pleadedÐ ¨ø Ðclaim€might€be€called€into€question.€€òòDorsey€v.€St.€Joseph€Co.€Jail€Officialsóó,€910€F.€Supp.€1343,€1349Ð ”ä Ð(N.D.€Ind.€1996),€òòrevððd€on€other€groundsóó,€98€F.3d€1527€(7th€Cir.€1996)€(reversing€the€grant€ofÐ €Ð Ðsummary€judgment€to€defendants€because€of€a€dispute€of€material€facts€regarding€the€incident).Ð l¼ ÐÌÔ#†X ™XXX ™d†#Ôà  àIn€order€for€an€amendment€adding€parties€to€relate€back,€a€plaintiff€must€show€that€the€failureÐ D!” Ðto€name€the€defendants€sought€to€be€added€by€amendment€resulted€from€a€mistake€concerning€theÐ 0"€  Ðidentity€of€the€proper€party.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03.€€ð ðA€ððmistakeðð€within€the€meaning€of€this€ruleÐ #l! Ðdoes€not€exist€merely€because€a€party€who€may€be€liable€for€conduct€alleged€in€the€original€complaintÐ $X" Ðwas€omitted€as€a€party€defendant.ðð€€òòSmithóó,€776€S.W.2d€at€109€(citing€òòJenkins€v.€Carruthóó,€583€F.Ð ô$D # ÐSupp.€613,€616€(E.D.€Tenn.€1982)).€€However,€ð ðmistakeðð€must€mean€more€than€a€mere€mislabelingÐ à%0!$ Ðof€the€proper€party,€because€the€notice€and€knowledge€requirements€of€the€second€sentence€of€Tenn.Ð Ì&"% ÐR.€Civ.€P.€15.03€do€not€apply€to€attempts€to€simply€correct€the€mislabeling€of€a€party.€òò€Grantham€v.Ð ° ÐJackson„Madison€County€Gen.€Hosp.€Dist.óó,€954€S.W.2d€36,€37„38€(Tenn.€1997).€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àA€mistake€includes€a€mistake€of€law€as€well€as€a€mistake€of€fact.€€òòSoto€v.€Brooklyn€Corr.Ð tÄ ÐFacilityóó,€80€F.3d€34,€36€(2d€Cir.€1996);€òòWoodsóó,€996€F.2d€at€887.Ð `° ÐÌà8  àThis€phrasing€of€the€ððmistakeðð€criterion€was€introduced€in€the€1966€amendment€toÐ 8 ˆ ÐRule€15.€€According€to€the€Advisory€Committee€Note€accompanying€the€1966Ð $ t Ðamendment,€the€language€was€prompted€by€several€cases€in€which€plaintiffs,€unawareÐ  ` Ðof€the€technical€requirements€of€the€law,€mistakenly€named€institutional€instead€ofÐ ü L  Ðindividual€defendants€.€.€.€.€€In€these€cases,€plaintiffs,€who€were€required€by€statute€toÐ è 8  Ðsue€the€Secretary€of€Health,€Education€and€Welfare,€ððhad€mistakenly€named€asÐ Ô$  Ðdefendants€the€United€States,€the€Department€of€HEW,€and€the€Federal€SecurityÐ À  ÐAdministration€(a€nonexistent€agency).€.€.€.ðð€€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€15€advisory€committeeÐ ¬ü  Ðnote€(1966€amendment).€€The€amendment€was€expressly€intended€to€preserveÐ ˜è  Ðlegitimate€suits€despite€such€mistakes€of€law€at€the€pleading€stage.€Ð„Ô Ð Ð  ÐÌòòSotoóó,€80€F.3d€at€36€(some€citations€omitted).Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àFederal€courts€have€found€the€mistake€requirement€satisfied€where€aòò€pro€seóó€plaintiff€has€suedÐ 4„ Ða€defendant€who€could€not€be€liable€under€the€law,€most€often€in€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983€actions€where€theÐ  p Ðplaintiff€originally€named€a€governmental€entity€and€later€sought€to€add€individual€officials€orÐ  \ Ðemployees.€€òòSotoóó,€80€F.3d€at€36„37;€òòSerranoóó,€909€F.2d€at€14„15.Ð øH ÐÌà  àThe€mistake€made€herein€by€Ms.€Vincent,€acting€òòpro€seóó,€was€that€she€sued€the€insuranceÐ Ð  Ðcompany€with€whom€she€had€been€dealing€and€who€had€paid€part€of€her€claim,€instead€of€the€insuredÐ ¼  Ðdriver€of€the€car€that€hit€her.€€Ms.€Vincentððs€brief€filing,€the€general€sessions€warrant,€containsÐ ¨ø Ðenough€information€to€make€it€clear€that€she€was€suing€for€injuries€received€in€the€motor€vehicleÐ ”ä Ðaccident.€€Ms.€Vincent€mistakenly€failed€to€name€the€party€alleged€to€have€caused€the€injury,€the€Ð €Ð Ðproper€party€in€a€negligence€action.€€Nonetheless,€Ms.€Gibson€was€driving€the€vehicle€which€ran€intoÐ l¼ ÐMs.€Vincent.€€Ms.€Gibson€was€fully€aware€of€the€accident€and€her€part€in€it.€€CNA€knew€or€shouldÐ X ¨ Ðhave€known€that€the€proper€defendant€was€its€insured,€Ms.€Gibson,€and€that€Ms.€Gibson€was€notÐ D!” Ðnamed€originally€only€through€a€mistake.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àCNAððs€course€of€conduct€herein€has€established€an€identity€of€interest€between€itself€and€itsÐ $X" Ðinsured€with€regard€to€Ms.€Vincentððs€claim€and€resulting€lawsuit.€€€While€a€number€of€situations€mayÐ ô$D # Ðarise€where€the€insured€and€the€insurer€do€not€have€the€same€interest,€or€in€fact€may€have€antagonisticÐ à%0!$ Ðinterests,€such€is€not€the€case€before€us.€€Not€only€did€CNA€undertake€to€negotiate€and€partially€settleÐ Ì&"% ÐMs.€Vincentððs€claim,€assuring€her€it€would€be€financially€responsible,€it€also€undertook€before€theÐ ¸'#& Ðcourts€to€represent€Ms.€Gibsonððs€interests€in€opposing€the€amendment.€€If€Ms.€Gibson€is€not€added,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðthe€dismissal€of€the€lawsuit€will€stand,€and€CNA€will€face€no€further€liability.€€Thus,€it€has€an€interestÐ )à$( Ðin€preventing€the€substitution€of€Ms.€Gibson.€€We€find€this€situation€to€demonstrate€a€sufficientlyÐ |*Ì%) Ðidentical€interest€to€justify€the€relation€back€of€the€amendment.Ð h+¸&* ЇÔ‡X ™XXX ™ÔÓ  ÓIV.€ConclusionÐ ° ÐÓœÓÔ#†X ™XXX ™£œ#ÔÔ‡X ™XXX ™ÔÌà  àApplying€the€legal€standards€explained€above,€we€conclude€that€Ms.€Vincent€met€theÐ ˆØ Ðrequirements€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03.€€Consequently,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Ô#†X ™XXX ™$#ÔÔ‡X ™XXX ™ÔThe€Ð tÄ Ðproposed€amendment€adding€Ms.€Gibson€is€allowed€and€relates€back€to€the€date€Ô#†X ™XXX ™;ž#ÔÔ‡X ™XXX ™Ôof€the€originalÐ `° Ðpleading.€Ô#†X ™XXX ™ãž#Ô€The€costs€of€the€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellee,€CNA,€for€which€execution€may€issue€ifÐ L œ Ðnecessary.Ð 8 ˆ Ðò òÌÌó óÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð è 8  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGEÐ Ô$  Ð