ÿWPCT/ ¢Ê+{t=ªÞ}Oí+‰:ŒËCžÂíûI6Æ^ÄBÿï¯×Ï$€9UóµVë3H$NµSQô —)!Fò­xhRBi½¡é.–G A‰™;$Œf 2œxf°†óVø)Wåjt-Ðp˜aE>4ÂU™5Î#}lTýIŸ™-„ÖÜá|2ÜøX~ Toô ¡èÄdæE¢?5:'ÒÓÁŠß‰–lø„áʪRŠ&ƒ8¹gÅ#uñ®Ë¦øP¾V™Àòq«Á,™B¶E<óïgÈ"p)I]º¹åƒ1?ˆ÷ÅÈúÛr&ƒE1l|ˆS³÷'Ø%DÛ¼c¾ÅGö±á°ïhÔNMÕ¾@Õu\w_"î•9A™Çšrð*†ëhCM€eÛ5yq¢y©Éf)¼;Õø8ÊŸÅ~~À·Öé'úܪ,<ê½rc·aŸIÕ,çœIþpÍÛ5ÃӪ—ˑÙ8P´#7øw–€ðFmt€å²aЦ¥K¶’ ¬M,Òý;` >›ˆ¼I-%Ý?«­|YeøNïŽÂ ~œðb÷²øɳcÄ$ÿ*ƒë‡Oö@ì«{"Í ö¼íIZÙÌJâ+“óÝéóX+M»Ñçb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ w· U3N» 4 z Ò— i x mz UN‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1r÷NikU@sE³½µarÙÓe¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¯!![À$æ''''' 0D***bE*E*E*E*E*E*E*E*E*E*E*E*E*E*E*E*E*E*E*E*E*E*E*E*E*E*E*E*E*E*E*E*E*E*E*E* 0íM*M*M*M* B:+:+ 0¤W+ D5û+ D-0, 0K],], AS¨,Æû, 0¤Á- 0De. A«©.˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»{~) (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularõ}|)àn£ ˜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(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 Ð  0 ' tg0tg .    (uHš Z‹(Times New Roman  ³Ý ƒRY$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô/Ýò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔòòSee,€e.g.óó,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð29-18-115(a)(4)„(5)€(1980)€(requiring€the€plaintiff€to€make€ð ðdiligent€inquiryððÐ ° Ðbefore€allowing€a€person€to€be€unknown€so€as€to€dispense€with€personal€service€of€process€in€forcible€entry€and€detainerÐ tÄ Ðactions);€Ô_ÔTenn.Ô_Ô€Code€Ann.€ðð21-1-203(a)(4)„(5)€(1994)€(requiring€the€plaintiff€to€make€ð ðdiligent€inquiryðð€before€allowingÐ 8ˆ Ða€person€to€be€unknown€so€as€to€dispense€with€personal€service€of€process€in€chancery€court€actions);€Ô_ÔTenn.Ô_Ô€Code€Ann.Ð üL Ððð54-14-103(a)(3)€(1998)€(requiring€petitioner€requesting€an€easement€or€right€of€way€to€diligently€inquire€as€to€theÐ À Ðidentity€of€the€owner€of€affected€lands). WÝ ƒRY$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô/Ýò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Court€of€Appeals€found€that€the€statute€of€limitations€had€run€against€the€three€possible€drivers€of€theÐ ° Ðother€car€and€that€the€complaint€was€amended€outside€of€the€time€limitation€in€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€15.€€Consequently,Ð tÄ Ðthe€Court€of€Appeals€ruled€that€because€the€plaintiff€could€not€maintain€an€action€against€the€actual€driver€of€the€otherÐ 8ˆ Ðcar,€she€could€not€maintain€an€action€against€her€insurer. ÏÝ ƒRY$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô/Ýò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔA€much€different€situation€would€be€presented€if€the€plaintiff€in€this€case€knew€of€the€possible€drivers€but€didÐ ° Ðnot€inform€her€insurer.€€In€such€a€case,€the€legislatureððs€concerns€with€prevention€of€fraudulent€claims€would€not€beÐ tÄ Ðminimized,€and€a€different€result€may€therefore€be€compelled. [Ý ƒRY$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô/Ýò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔIn€reaching€its€conclusion,€the€Court€of€Appeals€in€this€case€relied€upon€the€unreported€decision€in€òòGaffordÐ ° Ðv.€Caruthersóó,€No.€91C„2709,€1994€WL€420917€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Aug.€12,€1994).€€In€òòGaffordóó,€the€plaintiff€filed€suit€againstÐ tÄ Ða€number€of€identified€defendants€alleged€to€have€contributed€to€a€car€accident,€and€after€the€running€of€the€statute€ofÐ 8ˆ Ðlimitations,€the€plaintiff€also€filed€suit€against€a€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€defendant.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€held€that€because€theÐ üL Ðstatute€of€limitations€had€run€Ô_Ôagainst€theÔ_Ô€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€defendant,€then€the€plaintiff€could€not€maintain€an€action€againstÐ À Ðher€uninsured€motorist€carrier.Ð „Ô Ðà  àIn€this€case,€however,€the€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€complaint€was€properly€filed€within€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations,Ð H ˜ Ðand€it€otherwise€met€all€of€the€criteria€of€section€56„7„1201(e).€€When€a€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€action€is€properly€commenced€andÐ  \ Ðthe€identity€of€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€is€later€discovered€in€the€course€of€litigation,€section€„1206(e)€allows€the€plaintiff€aÐ Ð  Ðð ðreasonable€timeðð€to€amend€the€pleadings€and€to€affect€service€of€process€on€the€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€defendant.€€Because€theÐ ” ä  ÐòòGaffordóó€plaintiff€did€not€properly€commence€the€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€action€in€the€first€instance,€that€Ô_ÔcaseÔ_Ô€is€clearly€not€applicableÐ X ¨  Ðto€the€issue€in€this€case,€and€the€Court€of€Appeals€erred€in€relying€upon€òòGaffordóó€to€affirm€dismissal€of€the€plaintiffððsÐ  l  7 Ðð ðJohn€Doeðð€complaint.€ ¥Ý ƒRY$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô/Ýò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThis€is€precisely€the€route€attempted€by€the€plaintiff,€albeit€unwittingly,€when€she€attempted€to€amend€herÐ ° Ðð ðJohn€Doeðð€complaint€to€include€an€alternative€theory€of€recovery€against€the€suspected€drivers,€Dyson€and€Chaney.€Ð tÄ ÐApparently,€the€dissent€would€deny€the€plaintiff€the€opportunity€to€assert€an€alternative€cause€of€action€against€ð ðJohnÐ 8ˆ ÐDoeðð€even€if€the€identity€of€the€other€driver€was€not€actually€known€and€is€still€a€fact€in€issue.€€We€simply€do€not€believeÐ üL Ðthat€the€General€Assembly€intended€to€force€the€plaintiff€into€the€dissentððs€all„or„nothing€scenario€in€which€the€possibilityÐ À Ðexists€that€she€could€be€denied€an€adequate€remedy€merely€for€the€sake€of€neatness€in€pleading. QÝ ƒRY$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô/Ýò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Court€of€Appeals€in€òòLady€v.€Kreggeróó,€reasoned€that€because€rules€of€civil€procedure€are€ð ðlaws,ðð€they€areÐ ° Ðð ðsubject€to€being€superseded€in€the€same€manner€as€statutes.ðð€€747€S.W.2d€at€345.€€Although€òòÔ_ÔLadyÔ_Ôóó€only€addressed€serviceÐ tÄ Ðof€process€under€section€56„7„1206(e),€its€reasoning€applies€with€equal€strength€to€formal€amendment€of€the€pleadings.€Ð 8ˆ Ð ÜÝ ƒRY$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô/Ýò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThe€record€in€this€case€does€not€contain€the€actual€statements€made€by€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔDysonÔf  ÔÔg Ô€in€this€regard,€nor€does€itÐ ° ÐÔ_ÔcontainÔ_Ô€other€evidence€from€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔDysonððsÔf  ÔÔg Ô€trial€collaborating€the€veracity€of€his€alleged€statement.€€The€record€also€does€notÐ tÄ Ðreveal€whether€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔDysonÔf  ÔÔg Ô€or€any€one€of€the€other€defendants€were€convicted€of€any€crime€resulting€from€this€episode.€€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|I2Y$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Å»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô/Ýò»»Ô€€ d(|3$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Å»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Å»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Å»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Å»»»ÔÑ8€ÓÑXXdì»»d8Ñà@™ ™ ìàԇÅÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼Å»î #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓApril€11,€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XÓÑX»¼ÅÔÌÔ#†¼Å»XXÓÑî#Ôò òCASSANDRA€LYNN€Ô_ÔLIPSCOMBÔ_Ô€€v.€€JOHN€DOE€ó óÔ‡XÓÑX»¼ÅÔÐ úJ ÐÔ#†¼Å»XXÓÑ}#ÔÔ‡XÓÑX»¼ÅÔÌò òAppeal€by€Permission€from€the€Court€of€Appeals,€Western€SectionÐ ú J ЀÔ#†¼Å»XXÓÑÔ#ÔÔ‡XÓÑX»¼ÅÔCircuit€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ æ 6 Ðà@@øøìàNos.€81763„8€T.D.,€85203„8€T.D.€€€€€€Hon.€Ô_ÔDððArmyÔ_Ô€Bailey,€Judge€Ð Ò " ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<•` AßÐ –æ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W1997„00132„SC„R11„CVÔ#†¼Å»XXÓÑo#ÔÔ‡XÓÑX»¼ÅÔ€„€Filed€November€30,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<h` AßÐ i¹  Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓThe€primary€issue€in€this€case€is€whether€a€plaintiff€properly€initiates€suit€pursuant€to€the€ð ðJohn€DoeððÐ P  Ðprovisions€of€the€uninsured€motorist€statutes€when€(1)€the€plaintiff€is€aware€that€the€driver€of€theÐ <Œ Ðother€vehicle€is€one€of€several€persons,€but€(2)€the€plaintiff€does€not€actually€know€which€of€the€otherÐ (x Ðpossible€drivers€was€responsible€for€the€accident.€€The€trial€court€dismissed€the€original€ð ðJohn€DoeððÐ d Ðcomplaint,€finding€that€because€the€plaintiff€was€aware€the€other€driver€was€one€of€three€people,€theÐ P Ðother€driver€was€not€ð ðunknownðð€within€the€meaning€of€the€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€provisions.€€The€trial€courtÐ ì< Ðalso€denied€the€plaintiffððs€motion€to€amend€her€complaint€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Rule€of€CivilÐ Ø( ÐProcedure€15€and€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€20„1„119.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed€theÐ Ä Ðdismissal€of€the€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€complaint,€holding€that€because€the€plaintiff€was€not€entitled€to€aÐ ° Ðremedy€against€the€actual€uninsured€motorists,€then€she€was€also€without€a€remedy€against€herÐ œì Ðinsurance€carrier.€€Upon€review€of€the€record€and€the€applicable€legal€authority,€we€hold€that€theÐ ˆØ Ðplaintiffððs€suit€was€properly€commenced€under€the€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€provisions€of€the€uninsured€motoristÐ tÄ Ðstatutes.€€The€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€is€reversed,€and€this€case€is€remanded€to€the€ShelbyÐ `° ÐCounty€Circuit€Court€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.Ð L œ ÐÌò òÔ#†¼Å»XXÓÑ#ÔÔ‡XÓÑX»¼ÅÔÓ  ÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€Application€for€Permission€to€Appeal;€Judgment€of€the€Ð $"t! ÐCourt€of€Appeals€ReversedÔ#†¼Å»XXÓÑ— #ÔÔ‡XÓÑX»¼ÅÔ;€Case€Remandedó óÐ #`" ÐÓ¶ ÓÌòòÔ#†¼Å»àXÓÑ] #ÔÔ‡XÓÑX.¼ÅÔWilliam€M.€Barker,€Jóó.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòò,óó€òòE.€Riley€Anderson,€C.J.,€óóandÐ è$8 $ ÐòòÔ_ÔAdolphoÔ_Ô€A.€Birchóó,€òòJróó.,€J.,€joined.€€òòJanice€M.€Holderóó,€J.,€filed€a€dissenting€opinion.€€òòFrank€F.Ð Ô%$!% ÐÔ_ÔDrowotaÔ_Ô,€III,€óóÔ#†¼Å»XXÓÑÚ #ÔÔ‡XÓÑX»¼ÅÔJ.,€not€participating.Ð À&"& ÐÌA.€Wilson€Wages,€Ô_ÔMillingtonÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Cassandra€Lynn€Ô_ÔLipscombÔ_Ô.Ô#†¼Å»XXÓÑ{#ÔÔ‡XÓÑX»¼ÅÔÐ ˜(è#( ÐÌFred€P.€Wilson,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€and€Stuart€A.€Wilson,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,Ð p*À%* ÐÔ_ÔAmerisureÔ_Ô€Companies.Ô#†¼Å»XXÓÑ|#ÔÔ‡XÓÑX»¼ÅÔÐ \+¬&+ Ðâ âÔ#†¼Å»XXÓÑ|#ÔÔ‡XÓÑX»¼ÅÔÐ H,˜',ý¾ ÐÔ_ÔJohn€A.€Day,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€and€John€D.€Wood,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€amicus€curiae,Ð ° Ðâ âTennessee€Trial€Lawyers€Association.Ð œì ÐÌÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Å»XXÓÑÝ#ÔÔ‡XÓÑX»¼ÅԈР`° ÐÌÌÔ#†¼Å»XXÓÑ#ÔÔ‡ ¼Å»»¼ÅÔà  àÔ€ XÓÑX» ¼ÅÔOn€the€early€morning€of€September€24,€1995,€the€plaintiff,€Cassandra€Lynn€Lipscomb,Ð $ t Ðcompleted€her€night„shift€at€work€and€ate€an€early€breakfast€with€several€of€her€friends.€€At€aboutÐ  ` Ð5:00€a.m.,€the€plaintiff€started€her€trip€home€to€Memphis,€and€at€some€point€during€this€journey,€herÐ ü L  Ðcar€was€struck€from€behind€by€another€car.€€This€other€car€struck€the€plaintiff€several€more€timesÐ è 8  Ðbefore€finally€forcing€her€off€of€the€road.€€The€other€car€had€three€occupants,€one€of€whom€went€toÐ Ô$  Ðthe€plaintiffððs€car€and€shot€the€plaintiff€in€the€chest€through€the€car€window.€€After€stealing€theÐ À  Ðplaintiffððs€money€and€her€cellular€phone,€the€three€individuals€left€the€plaintiff€to€die€on€the€side€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€road.€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àAfter€her€attackers€left,€the€plaintiff,€who€apparently€did€not€realize€that€she€had€been€shot,Ð pÀ Ðran€to€a€nearby€phone€to€call€the€police.€€While€dialing€the€phone,€she€saw€blood€coming€from€herÐ \¬ Ðchest,€causing€her€to€collapse€into€unconsciousness.€€Arriving€shortly€thereafter,€the€police€rushedÐ H˜ Ðthe€plaintiff€to€the€hospital,€where€doctors€discovered€that€the€bullet€was€lodged€between€her€heartÐ 4„ Ðand€lungs.€Ô#†XÓÑXX XÓÑx#Ô€The€plaintiff€remained€hospitalized€for€a€week€and€was€released.Ð  p ÐÌà  àWithin€days€of€the€plaintiffððs€shooting,€officers€of€the€Memphis€Police€Department€arrestedÐ øH Ðthree€individuals€believed€to€be€the€persons€involved€in€the€plaintiffððs€accident€and€shooting.€€TheseÐ ä4 Ðthree€individuals,€Antonio€Chaney,€James€Logan,€and€Cory€Dyson,€were€charged€with€attemptedÐ Ð  Ðmurder€and€aggravated€robbery.€€In€a€later€criminal€proceeding€arising€out€of€this€episode,€CoryÐ ¼  ÐDyson€apparently€admitted€to€being€the€driver€of€the€car€causing€the€plaintiffððs€accident.׃&×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р¨ø ÐÌà  àOn€October€7,€1995,€the€Memphis€Commercial€Appeal€ran€an€article€containing€an€interviewÐ €Ð Ðwith€the€plaintiff€following€her€release€from€the€hospital.€€The€newspaper€article€also€listed€theÐ l¼ Ðnames€and€addresses€of€three€individuals€arrested€and€charged€with€the€plaintiffððs€robbery€andÐ X ¨ Ðattempted€murder.€€About€a€month€after€the€printing€of€the€article,€the€plaintiff€contacted€herÐ D!” Ðuninsured€motorist€carrier,€Amerisure€Companies,€and€informed€an€agent€of€Amerisure€of€the€namesÐ 0"€  Ðof€the€suspects€arrested€and€charged€with€her€attack.€€In€addition,€the€plaintiff€told€the€AmerisureÐ #l! Ðagent€that€the€names€and€addresses€of€her€alleged€assailants€were€contained€in€the€October€7Ð $X" ÐCommercial€Appeal€article,€and€she€faxed€a€copy€of€the€article€to€Amerisure.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àOn€September€24,€1996,€the€plaintiff€filed€suit€under€the€uninsured€motorist€statutes€claimingÐ Ì&"% Ðdamages€sustained€in€her€attack,€which€occurred€exactly€one€year€earlier.€€Pursuant€to€TennesseeÐ ¸'#& ÐCode€Annotated€section€56„7„1206(b),€she€named€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€as€the€nominal€defendant,€allegingÐ ° Ðthat€the€accident€was€ð ðcaused€by€an€unknown€driver€who€left€the€scene€of€the€accident.ðð€€TheÐ œì Ðplaintiff,€who€made€no€specific€mention€of€Chaney,€Logan,€or€Dyson€in€her€allegations,€alsoÐ ˆØ Ðforwarded€a€copy€of€the€complaint€and€summons€to€Amerisure.€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àAmerisure€filed€an€answer€in€its€own€behalf€as€the€plaintiffððs€uninsured€motorist€insurer,€andÐ L œ Ðalleged€that€the€ð ðname€of€the€driver€of€the€[other]€vehicle€was€known€or€should€have€been€knownÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€the€plaintiff€prior€to€the€filing€of€the€lawsuit....ðð€€Pursuant€to€Tennessee€Rule€of€Civil€ProcedureÐ $ t Ð36,€Amerisure€also€requested€that€the€plaintiff€admit,€among€other€things,€that€she€knew€(1)€that€anÐ  ` Ðarticle€appeared€in€the€Commercial€Appeal€on€October€7,€1995€which€contained€the€names€andÐ ü L  Ðaddresses€of€her€attackers;€(2)€that€the€Memphis€Police€Department€arrested€and€charged€theseÐ è 8  Ðindividuals€with€her€attack€after€investigation€of€the€accident;€and€(3)€that€the€plaintiff€knew€ð ðtheÐ Ô$  Ðnames€and€addresses€of€the€person€or€persons€who€struck€the€rear€of€[her]€car€and€shot€[her]€onÐ À  ÐSeptember€24,€1995.ðð€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  à€In€her€response€to€the€requests€for€admission,€the€plaintiff€admitted€the€existence€of€theÐ „Ô  ÐCommercial€Appeal€article€and€that€the€Memphis€police€arrested€and€charged€the€persons€mentionedÐ pÀ Ðin€the€article.€€The€plaintiff€specifically€denied,€however,€that€she€knew€who€actually€drove€the€carÐ \¬ Ðthe€morning€of€her€attack.€€In€response€to€the€last€request€for€admission,€the€plaintiff€stated:€ð ðDenied.€Ð H˜ ÐI€still€do€not€know€for€sure€who€was€driving€the€car.€€I€honestly€[believe]€that€Antonio€Chaney€wasÐ 4„ Ðdriving[,]€but€I€believe€in€Court€that€Cory€Dyson€said€he€was€driving.ððÐ  p ÐÌà  àOn€December€5,€1995,€Amerisure€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€the€complaint,€alleging€amongÐ øH Ðother€things,€that€ð ðthe€plaintiff€has€failed€to€comply€with€the€requirements€of€[Tennessee€CodeÐ ä4 ÐAnnotated€section]€56„7„1201€et€seq.ðð€€More€specifically,€Amerisure€argued€that€because€the€plaintiffÐ Ð  Ðwas€aware€that€the€driver€of€the€other€car€was€one€of€three€people,€the€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€provisions€ofÐ ¼  ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€56„7„1206€could€not€be€properly€used.€€The€plaintiff€then€movedÐ ¨ø Ðto€amend€her€complaint€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€15€and€Tennessee€CodeÐ ”ä ÐAnnotated€section€20„1„119€to€allege€a€cause€of€action€against€Dyson,€Logan,€and€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔChaneyÔf  ÔÔg Ô€asÐ €Ð Ðdefendants.€€The€amended€complaint€asserted€that€the€ð ð[p]laintiff,€after€diligent€inquiry€and€effortÐ l¼ Ðhas€been€unable€to€ascertain€for€sure€the€driver€of€the€vehicle€occupied€by€the€Defendants.€€PlaintiffÐ X ¨ Ðbelieves€that€one€of€the€Defendants€was€€driving[,]€but€in€Criminal€Court,€a€different€DefendantÐ D!” Ð[was]€alleged€to€have€been€driving.ððÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àOn€February€13,€1997,€Amerisure€filed€motion€to€dismiss€any€claims€asserted€by€the€plaintiffÐ $X" Ðagainst€Dyson,€Logan,€and€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔChaneyÔf  ÔÔg Ô,€and€by€consent€of€the€parties,€the€trial€court€consolidated€allÐ ô$D # Ðmotions€pending€before€it.€€After€holding€hearings€on€the€issues€presented€by€the€motions,€the€trialÐ à%0!$ Ðcourt€granted€Amerisureððs€motion€to€dismiss€the€plaintiffððs€original€complaint€on€October€31,€1997Ð Ì&"% Ðfor€improper€use€of€the€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€procedures.€€The€trial€court€also€denied€the€plaintiffððs€motion€toÐ ¸'#& Ðamend€the€complaint€pursuant€to€Rule€15€or€section€20„1„119.€€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àThe€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€in€all€respects.€€Addressing€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðamendment€issue€first,€the€court€held€that€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€15€could€not€be€used€to€amend€theÐ h+¸&* Ðcomplaint€because€Dyson,€Logan,€and€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔChaneyÔf  ÔÔg Ô€were€not€given€notice€of€the€pendency€of€the€suitÐ ° Ðð ðwithin€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations€or€within€120€days€after€commencement€of€the€actionððÐ œì Ðas€required€by€the€rule.€€Moreover,€the€court€held€that€section€20„1„119€could€not€be€used€to€assertÐ ˆØ Ða€claim€against€Dyson,€Logan,€or€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔChaneyÔf  ÔÔg Ô,€because€the€statute€ð ðis€applicable€only€when€the€plaintiffÐ tÄ Ðis€unaware€of€the€fault€of€the€third€party€at€the€time€the€plaintiff€filed€his€or€her€complaint.ðð€€As€toÐ `° Ðthe€proper€use€of€the€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€procedures,€the€Court€of€Appeals€held€that€the€plaintiffððs€ð ðJohnÐ L œ ÐDoeðð€complaint€was€properly€dismissed€because€the€plaintiff€had€no€remedy€against€the€driver(s)€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€other€car.€€The€court€then€reasoned€that€the€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€procedures€could€not€give€a€plaintiffÐ $ t Ðgreater€rights€against€the€insurance€carrier€than€the€plaintiff€would€have€against€the€uninsuredÐ  ` Ðmotorist.€€The€€Court€of€Appeals€did€not€address€whether€the€plaintiffððs€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€complaint€wasÐ ü L  Ðproperly€filed€in€the€first€instance.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiff€then€requested,€and€we€granted,€permission€to€appeal€on€the€following€issues:Ð À  Ð(1)€whether€the€plaintiffððs€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€suit€was€properly€dismissed;€and€(2)€whether€the€trial€courtÐ ¬ü  Ðproperly€denied€the€plaintiffððs€motion€to€amend€her€original€complaint€to€add€additional€defendantsÐ ˜è  Ðpursuant€to€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€15€or€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€20„1„119.€€For€theÐ „Ô  Ðreasons€given€herein,€we€hold€that€the€plaintiffððs€initial€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€suit€was€properly€filed.€€BecauseÐ pÀ Ðthis€issue€is€dispositive€of€the€other€issues€in€this€case,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€Court€ofÐ \¬ ÐAppeals€and€remand€this€case€to€the€Shelby€County€Circuit€Court€for€further€proceedings€consistentÐ H˜ Ðwith€this€opinion.Ð 4„ ÐÌÓ  Óò òSTANDARD€OF€APPELLATE€REVIEWó óÐ  \ ÐÓZ;ÓÌà  àIn€this€case,€we€are€asked€to€decide€questions€involving€the€proper€scope€of€the€uninsuredÐ ä4 Ðmotorist€statutory€scheme,€as€well€as€issues€concerning€the€scope€of€Tennessee€Rule€of€CivilÐ Ð  ÐProcedure€15€and€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€20„1„119.€€Because€Ô‡XÓÑXXXÓÑÔissues€of€statutoryÐ ¼  Ðconstruction€are€questions€of€law,€òòseeóó€òòWakefield€v.€Crawleyóó,€6€S.W.3d€442,€445€(Tenn.€1999)Ô#†XÓÑXXXÓÑß<#Ô;Ð ¨ø ÐòòJordan€v.€Baptist€Three€Rivers€Hosp.óó,€984€S.W.2d€593,€599€(Tenn.€1999),€we€review€the€issues€inÐ ”ä Ðthis€case€òòde€novoóó€without€any€presumption€that€the€trial€courtððs€legal€determinations€were€correct,Ð €Ð Ðòòseeóó€òòLavin€v.€Jordonóó,€16€S.W.3d€362,€364€(Tenn.€2000);€òòWells€v.€Tennessee€Bd.€of€Regentsóó,€9€S.W.3dÐ l¼ Ð779,€783€(Tenn.€1999);€òòNelson€v.€Wal-Mart€Stores,€Inc.óó,€8€S.W.3d€625,€628€(Tenn.€1999).Ð X ¨ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓANALYSISó óÐ 0"€  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€56„7„1206(b)€(1994)€allows€a€plaintiff€to€file€a€ð ðJohnÐ $X" ÐDoeðð€action€in€order€to€recover€damages€from€his€or€her€uninsured€motorist€policy€for€injuries€causedÐ ô$D # Ðby€an€ð ðunknownðð€owner€or€operator€of€another€motor€vehicle.€€Before€a€plaintiff€may€recover€in€aÐ à%0!$ Ðð ðJohn€Doeðð€action€under€this€section,€however,€the€owner€or€operator€of€the€other€vehicle€must€beÐ Ì&"% Ðð ðunknown,ðð€and€the€plaintiff€must€satisfy€the€three€requirements€listed€in€section€56„7„1201(e)Ð ¸'#& Ð(1994).€€This€section€reads€as€follows:Ð ¤(ô#' Ðâ âÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÐ )à$( Ð(e)à ` àIf€the€owner€or€operator€of€any€motor€vehicle€which€causes€bodily€injury€orÐ ° Ðproperty€damage€to€the€insured€is€unknown,€the€insured€shall€have€no€right€to€recoverÐ œì Ðunder€the€uninsured€motorist€provision€unless:Ð ˆØ Ðâ âÌà ` à(1)(A)€Actual€physical€contact€shall€have€occurred€between€the€motor€vehicleÐ `° Ðowned€or€operated€by€such€unknown€person€and€the€person€or€property€of€theÐ L œ Ðinsured;€orÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà ` à(B)à ¸ àThe€existence€of€such€unknown€motorist€is€established€by€clear€andÐ  ` Ðconvincing€evidence,€other€than€any€evidence€provided€by€occupants€in€the€insuredÐ ü L  Ðvehicle;Ð è 8  ÐÌà ` à(2)à ¸ àThe€insured€or€someone€in€the€insuredððs€behalf€shall€have€reported€theÐ À  Ðaccident€to€the€appropriate€law€enforcement€agency€within€a€reasonable€time€after€itsÐ ¬ü  Ðoccurrence;€andÐ ˜è  ÐÌà ` à(3)à ¸ àThe€insured€was€not€negligent€in€failing€to€determine€the€identity€ofÐ pÀ Ðthe€other€vehicle€and€the€owner€or€operator€of€the€other€vehicle€at€the€time€of€theÐ \¬ Ðaccident.Ð H˜ ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°Òà  àAmerisure€essentially€argues€that€because€the€plaintiff€was€aware€that€the€driver€or€operatorÐ  p Ðof€the€other€vehicle€was€among€a€known€universe€of€drivers,€then€the€other€driver€was€notÐ  \ Ðð ðunknownðð€within€the€meaning€of€the€uninsured€motorist€statute.€€Conversely,€the€plaintiff€arguesÐ øH Ðthat€because€she€does€not€actually€know€of€the€identity€of€the€other€driver€and€because€the€driverððsÐ ä4 Ðidentity€is€still€at€issue€in€this€case,€the€suit€was€properly€initiated€under€the€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€procedures.€Ð Ð  ÐAccording€to€the€plaintiffððs€interpretation,€the€fact€that€the€potential€universe€of€drivers€has€beenÐ ¼  Ðnarrowed€does€not€mean€that€the€other€driver€is€ð ðknownðð€within€the€meaning€of€the€uninsuredÐ ¨ø Ðmotorist€statutes.€€We€agree.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àOur€primary€purpose€in€construing€statutes€is€ð ðto€ascertain€and€give€effect€to€the€intention€andÐ l¼ Ðpurpose€of€the€legislature.ðð€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòGleaves€v.€Checker€Cab€Transit€Corp.óó,€15€S.W.3d€799,€802Ð X ¨ Ð(Tenn.€2000).€€ð ðLegislative€intent€is€to€be€ascertained€whenever€possible€from€the€natural€andÐ D!” Ðordinary€meaning€of€the€language€used,€without€forced€or€subtle€construction€that€would€limit€orÐ 0"€  Ðextend€the€meaning€of€the€language.ðð€€òòHawks€v.€City€of€Westmorelandóó,€960€S.W.2d€10,€16€(Tenn.Ð #l! Ð1997).€€When€the€language€of€the€statute€is€clear€and€unambiguous,€then€this€Court€usually€appliesÐ $X" Ðthe€plain€language€of€the€statute€to€resolve€the€issue.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Nelsonóó,€23€S.W.3d€270,€271Ð ô$D # Ð(Tenn.€2000).€€Where€the€plain€language€of€the€statute€does€not€directly€address€the€issue€or€leadsÐ à%0!$ Ðto€an€absurd€result,€however,€this€Court€will€look€beyond€the€language€of€the€statute€and€adopt€aÐ Ì&"% Ðreasonable€construction€that€provides€for€harmonious€operation€of€the€laws.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Flemmingóó,Ð ¸'#& Ð19€S.W.3d€195,€197€(Tenn.€2000);€òòFletcher€v.€Stateóó,€951€S.W.2d€378,€382€(Tenn.€1997).€€Ô‡XÓÑXXXÓÑÔÐ ¤(ô#' ÐÔ#†XÓÑXXXÓÑÎP#ÔÌà  àThe€plain€language€of€the€statute€is€not€determinative€of€the€issue€in€this€case.€€NeitherÐ |*Ì%) Ðsection€56„7„1206(b),€nor€section€56„7„1201(e),€explicitly€defines€the€phrase€ð ðunknown€motorist.ðð€Ð h+¸&* ÐAs€indicated€by€section€56„7„1201(e),€the€legislature€probably€intended€that€an€ð ðunknown€motoristððÐ ° Ðbe€one€whose€identity€is€not€discoverable€after€reasonable€investigation.€€Indeed,€this€conclusion€isÐ œì Ðstrengthened€by€the€fact€that€the€General€Assembly€has€elsewhere€required€ð ðdiligent€inquiryðð€beforeÐ ˆØ Ðpermitting€the€conclusion€that€a€person€is€ð ðunknown.ðð׃×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Despite€this€conclusion,€though,€the€issueÐ tÄ Ðstill€remains€whether€a€motorist€remains€ð ðunknownðð€for€purposes€of€the€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€provisionsÐ `° Ðwhen,€after€reasonable€inquiry€and€investigation,€the€plaintiff€has€narrowed€the€possible€universe€ofÐ L œ Ðdrivers€but€has€no€actual€knowledge€of€the€identity€of€the€driver€of€the€other€vehicle.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àWhere€the€language€of€the€statute€does€not€speak€to€the€precise€issue,€courts€should€ð ðgiveÐ  ` Ðconsideration€to€the€purpose,€objective€and€spirit€behind€the€legislation.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòDorrier€v.€Darkóó,€537Ð ü L  ÐS.W.2d€888,€892€(Tenn.€1976).€€This€Court€has€previously€recognized€that€the€purpose€of€each€ofÐ è 8  Ðthe€three€requirements€of€section€56„7„1201(e)€is€ð ðto€eliminate€fraudulent€claims€[against€an€insurer]Ð Ô$  Ðbased€[upon€allegations€of]€a€phantom€driver.ðð€€òòHoyle€v.€Carrollóó,€646€S.W.2d€161,€162€(Tenn.€1983)Ð À  Ð(discussing€section€56„7„1201(e)(1)(A)€specifically).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòFruge€v.€Doeóó,€952€S.W.2d€408,€411Ð ¬ü  Ð(Tenn.€1997)€(ð ðThe€high€standard€of€proof€required€by€[section€56„7„1201(e)(1)(B)]€.€.€.€obviouslyÐ ˜è  Ðwas€intended€by€the€legislature€as€a€safeguard€against€bogus€claims€arising€from€one„vehicleÐ „Ô  Ðaccidents.ðð).€€Although€the€General€Assembly€was€obviously€concerned€that€plaintiffs€are€notÐ pÀ Ðwithout€an€adequate€remedy€against€unknown€tortfeasors,€this€concern€was€carefully€balanced€in€theÐ \¬ Ðuninsured€motorist€statutes€with€protections€for€insurance€carriers€against€fraudulent€claims.€€AsÐ H˜ Ðsuch,€when€determining€whether€the€driver€of€the€other€vehicle€in€this€case€was€ð ðunknownðð€at€theÐ 4„ Ðtime€the€suit€was€originally€filed,€we€should€be€mindful€that€the€purpose€of€section€56„7„1201(e)€wasÐ  p Ðto€eliminate€fraudulent€claims€against€a€plaintiffððs€insurance€carrier.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àWith€this€purpose€in€mind,€we€conclude€that€no€intent€to€defraud€can€be€inferred€where€anÐ ä4 Ðinsured€diligently€discovers€information€on€possible€operators€of€the€other€vehicle,€and€where€theÐ Ð  Ðinsured€communicates€this€information€directly€to€the€insurer€within€a€reasonable€time€before€filingÐ ¼  Ðsuit.€€Consequently,€the€failure€of€the€plaintiff€to€rename€the€possible€drivers€in€the€complaint€is€notÐ ¨ø Ðmaterially€prejudicial€in€any€way.€€Because€the€plaintiff€in€this€case€informed€Amerisure€of€theÐ ”ä Ðpossibleð"ðthough€not€certainð"ðidentity€of€the€other€driver€who€caused€her€accident,€the€insurer€hadÐ €Ð Ðan€adequate€basis€from€which€to€begin€investigation€and€preparation€for€litigation.€€The€plaintiffððsÐ l¼ Ðfailure€to€rename€these€individuals€in€her€complaint,€especially€when€such€naming€would€amountÐ X ¨ Ðto€some€degree€of€speculation,€did€not€deprive€Amerisure€of€any€notice€or€opportunity€to€present€aÐ D!” Ðdefense€beyond€that€normally€present€in€a€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€action.€€If,€and€when,€the€identity€of€the€otherÐ 0"€  Ðdriver€actually€becomes€known€through€the€course€of€litigation,€then€the€parties€are€free€to€proceedÐ #l! Ðunder€the€procedures€outlined€by€the€General€Assembly€in€section€56„7„1206(e).Ð $X" Ðâ âÐ ô$D # Ðà  àWe€are€reluctant€to€adopt€the€position€advocated€by€Amerisure,€which€would€have€us€holdÐ ° Ðâ âthat€the€plaintiff€must€name€all€persons€within€the€possible€universe€of€drivers€before€an€action€isÐ œì Ðproper€under€the€uninsured€motorist€statutes.€€It€appears€to€be€uncontroverted€from€the€record€thatÐ ˆØ Ð(1)€the€plaintiff€acted€with€due€diligence€in€uncovering€the€identity€of€the€possible€drivers€of€theÐ tÄ Ðother€car€which€caused€her€accident;€(2)€the€plaintiff€has€no€actual€knowledge€of€the€identity€of€theÐ `° Ðowner€or€operator€of€the€other€vehicle;€and€(3)€the€plaintiff€acted€reasonably€in€communicating€herÐ L œ Ðfindings€to€her€insurance€company€a€full€nine€months€before€filing€suit.€€To€dismiss€the€plaintiffððsÐ 8 ˆ Ðsuit€for€failing€to€name€all€possible€defendants,€in€the€absence€of€prejudice€to€the€insurer,€improperlyÐ $ t Ðshifts€the€focus€of€the€inquiry€from€diligent€discovery€to€the€failure€to€name€all€other€possibleÐ  ` Ðdrivers.׃×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€decline€to€strictly€focus€upon€the€pleadings€of€the€case€without€looking€to€the€largerÐ ü L  Ðpurposes€underlying€section€56„7„1201(e),€which€are€to€prevent€fraudulent€claims€by€the€plaintiffÐ è 8  Ðagainst€his€or€her€uninsured€motorist€carrier.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌÔf  ÔÔg Ôà  àWe€are€also€reluctant€to€adopt€the€approach€advocated€by€the€dissent€in€this€case,€whichÐ ¬ü  Ðconcludes€that€because€the€plaintiff€ð ðhonestly€believedðð€that€a€specific€individual,€such€as€Chaney,Ð ˜è  Ðwas€the€driver€of€the€other€car,€she€was€not€entitled€to€ð ðabandon[]€the€traditional€rules€of€pleadingððÐ „Ô  Ðin€favor€of€invoking€the€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€procedures.€€The€dissent€apparently€ignores€that€the€jury€is€notÐ pÀ Ðbound€to€accept€as€true€the€plaintiffððs€ð ðhonest€beliefðð€as€to€the€identity€of€the€other€driver,€and€inÐ \¬ Ðignoring€this€potentially€critical€fact,€the€dissent€turns€a€blind€eye€to€the€plaintiffððs€plight€if€the€juryÐ H˜ Ðwere€to€determine€that€her€suspected€driver€was€not€the€actual€driver.€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àThis€very€concern€was€expressed€by€the€Georgia€Court€of€Appeals€in€òòSmith€v.€Doeóó,€375Ð  \ ÐS.E.2d€477€(Ga.€Ct.€App.€1987).€€In€òòSmithóó,€the€plaintiff€was€the€victim€of€a€hit„and„run€accident,€andÐ øH Ðalthough€the€plaintiff€did€not€actually€know€the€identity€of€the€other€driver,€several€witnessesÐ ä4 Ðidentified€the€other€driver€from€photographs.€€In€the€subsequent€suit€for€damages€under€his€uninsuredÐ Ð  Ðmotorist€policy,€the€plaintiff€named€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€as€the€nominal€defendant,€and€in€an€alternativeÐ ¼  Ðcount,€he€alleged€the€suspected€driver€as€the€person€responsible€for€the€accident.€€The€insurer€thenÐ ¨ø Ðsuccessfully€moved€to€dismiss€the€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€complaint,€arguing€that€the€other€driver€was€notÐ ”ä Ðð ðunknownðð€as€evidenced€by€the€plaintiffððs€alternative€count.€€In€reversing€the€dismissal,€the€GeorgiaÐ €Ð ÐCourt€of€Appeals€stated€the€plaintiffððs€quandary€as€follows:Ð l¼ Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àIf€a€jury€should€find€against€the€appellant,€that€would€establish€that€[the€named€party]Ð D!” Ðwas€not€the€tortfeasor.€€That€being€so,€the€identity€of€the€tortfeasor€would€beÐ 0"€  Ðunknown,€but€the€earlier€grant€of€summary€judgment€to€John€Doe€would€forecloseÐ #l! Ða€judgment€against€an€unknown€tortfeasor.€€[The€a]ppellant€would€then€be€unable€toÐ $X" Ðobtain€the€judgment€against€the€tortfeasor€which€is€a€condition€precedent€to€recoveryÐ ô$D # Ðagainst€the€uninsured€motorist€carrier.€Ðà%0!$Ð Ð  Ðâ âÐ Ì&"% ÐòòSmithóó,€375€S.E.2d€at€479.€€As€such,€even€though€the€identity€of€the€other€driver€was€reasonablyÐ ° Ðâ âsuspected,€the€court€permitted€the€plaintiff€to€allege€alternative€counts€of€liability€against€both€ð ðJohnÐ œì ÐDoeðð€òòandóó€the€suspected,€though€not€certain,€driver.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àWe€agree€with€the€rationale€of€the€Georgia€Court€of€Appeals€in€òòSmithóó,€and€we€choose€toÐ `° Ðfollow€a€similar€course.€€As€such,€where€the€plaintiff€has€no€actual€knowledge€of€the€identity€of€theÐ L œ Ðother€driver,€but€the€universe€of€suspected€drivers€has€been€narrowed€through€the€plaintiffððsÐ 8 ˆ Ðreasonable€investigation,€the€prudent€plaintiff€should€allege€òòalternativeóó€theories€of€liability€againstÐ $ t Ðð ðJohn€Doeðð€òòandóó€the€suspected€driver(s).€€A€trial€court€should€then€dismiss€a€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€complaintÐ  ` Ðonly€when€the€identity€of€the€other€driver€is€no€longer€at€issue.€€In€this€way,€plaintiffs€are€able€toÐ ü L  Ðprotect€themselves€against€the€possibility€that€the€jury€could€determine€that€someone€other€than€theÐ è 8  Ðspecific€individuals€named€in€the€complaint€is€at€fault,€and€the€goal€of€the€General€Assembly€toÐ Ô$  Ðprovide€remedy€against€uninsured€motorists€is€furthered.׃#×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РÀ  ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€plaintiff€in€this€case€did€not€allege€alternative€theories€of€liability€in€her€originalÐ ˜è  Ðcomplaint,€we€disagree€with€the€dissent€that€complete€dismissal€is€the€appropriate€remedy€for€thisÐ „Ô  Ðshortcoming.€€The€fact€still€remains€(1)€that€the€identity€of€the€other€driver€is€the€subject€of€someÐ pÀ Ðdispute,€€notwithstanding€the€plaintiffððs€suspicions,€and€(2)€that€the€insurer€in€this€case€has€not€beenÐ \¬ Ðprejudiced€in€any€material€way€by€the€plaintiffððs€failure€to€allege€an€alternative€count€of€liabilityÐ H˜ Ðagainst€Chaney.€€Dismissal€the€plaintiffððs€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€complaint€under€these€circumstances€isÐ 4„ Ðunreasonably€harsh€as€it€would€unduly€restrict€the€scope€of€the€uninsured€motorist€statutes€and€wouldÐ  p Ðreach€a€result€not€contemplated€by€the€General€Assembly.€€Ð  \ ÐÌÔf  ÔÔg Ôà  àTÔ‡XÓÑXXXÓÑÔhis€Court€has€previously€recognized€that€the€uninsured€motorist€statutes€reflect€theÐ ä4 ÐÔ#†XÓÑXXXÓÑÜ{#Ôð ðintention€of€the€General€Assembly€to€permit€the€insured€to€pursue,€insofar€as€possible,€[his€or€her]Ð Ð  Ðordinary€tort€remedy€against€the€uninsured€motorist.ðð€€òòCavalier€Ins.€Corp.€v.€Osmentóó,€538€S.W.2dÐ ¼  Ð399,€403€(Tenn.€1976).€€Section€56-7-1206€specifically€is€remedial€in€nature,€òòseeóó€òòHutchison€v.Ð ¨ø ÐTennessee€Farmers€Mut.€Ins.€Co.óó,€652€S.W.2d€904,€906€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983),€Ô‡XÓÑXXXÓÑÔand€this€CourtÐ ”ä Ðtraditionally€gives€a€liberal€construction€to€remedial€statutes,€so€long€as€the€legislative€intent€is€notÐ €Ð Ðdisturbed€and€the€result€is€not€clearly€contrary€to€the€language€of€the€statutes,€òòsee,€e.g.óó,€òòDailey€v.Ð l¼ ÐStateóó,€225€Tenn.€472,€477,€Ô#†XÓÑXXXÓÑM~#ÔÔ‡XÓÑXXXÓÑÔ470€S.W.2d€608,€610Ô#†XÓÑXXXÓÑÒ#ÔÔ‡XÓÑXXXÓÑÔ€(1971).€€Ô#†XÓÑXXXÓÑ'€#ÔAllowing€the€plaintiff€to€pursue€her€ð ðJohnÐ X ¨ ÐDoeðð€suit€under€the€unique€facts€of€this€case€in€no€way€interferes€with€the€legislatureððs€legitimateÐ D!” Ðconcerns€of€fraud€prevention,€and€because€the€statute€does€not€directly€address€this€issue,€our€resultÐ 0"€  Ðtoday€is€not€plainly€contrary€to€the€language€of€section€56„7„1201(e).€€We€therefore€conclude€thatÐ #l! Ðthe€plaintiff€properly€commenced€suit€in€this€case€under€the€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€provisions€of€the€uninsuredÐ $X" Ðmotorist€statutes.Ð ô$D # ÐÔf  ÔÔg ÔÐ à%0!$ Ðà  àThe€Court€of€Appeals€in€this€case€reasoned€that€because€the€plaintiff€could€not€assert€a€causeÐ ° Ðof€action€against€the€driver€of€the€other€car,׃×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€then€she€was€also€without€a€remedy€against€her€insurer.€Ð œì ÐRespectfully,€however,€this€analysis€is€incomplete€for€all€practical€purposes,€because€it€fails€to€takeÐ ˆØ Ðinto€account€the€effect€of€section€56„7„1206(e)€on€the€pleading€process.€€This€section€states€thatÐ tÄ ÐÌà8  à[i]n€the€event€the€uninsured€motoristððs€whereabouts€is€discovered€during€theÐ L œ Ðpendency€of€the€proceedings,€an€alias€process€may€issue€against€the€uninsuredÐ 8 ˆ Ðmotorist.€€In€such€a€case,€the€uninsured€motorist€shall€be€allowed€a€reasonable€timeÐ $ t Ðwithin€which€to€plead€to€the€original€process,€and€then€the€case€may€proceed€againstÐ  ` Ðthe€uninsured€motorist€as€if€the€motorist€was€served€with€process€in€the€first€instance.Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€56„7„1206(e).Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àSignificantly,€the€General€Assembly€has€provided€that€when€ð ðthe€uninsured€motoristððsÐ ¬ü  Ðidentity€and€whereabouts€are€discovered€during€the€pendency€of€the€proceeding,ðð€then€section€56„7„Ð ˜è  Ð1206(e)€ð ðshall€govern€the€proper€course€of€action€following€such€discovery.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð „Ô  Ððð€56„7„1206(b).€€With€the€use€of€this€language,€it€is€clear€to€us€that€the€General€Assembly€intendedÐ pÀ Ðto€abrogate€application€of€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€3€and€15€when€the€plaintiff€seeks€to€amend€aÐ \¬ Ðð ðJohn€Doeðð€complaint€upon€discovery€of€the€identity€of€the€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€òòLady€v.Ð H˜ ÐKreggeróó,€747€S.W.2d€342,€345€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987).׃% ×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Because€the€plaintiff€has€a€ð ðreasonable€timeÐ 4„ Ðwithin€which€to€plead€to€the€original€processðð€once€the€identity€of€the€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€motorist€becomesÐ  p Ðknown,€expiration€of€the€time€limits€in€Rules€3€and€15€cannot€affect€the€plaintiffððs€remedy€againstÐ  \ Ðthe€newly€identified€motorist€under€an€action€that€was€properly€commenced€in€the€first€instance.׃x×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РøH ÐTherefore,€we€conclude€that€the€Court€of€Appeals€improperly€affirmed€the€dismissal€of€the€plaintiffððsÐ ° Ðð ðJohn€Doeðð€complaint.Ð œì ÐÓ_‡ÓÌÓ  Óò òAMENDMENT€OF€THE€COMPLAINTó óÐ tÄ ÐÌÓäÓÓ  Óà  àBecause€we€hold€that€the€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€procedures€were€not€improperly€used€by€the€plaintiffÐ L œ Ðin€this€case,€we€need€not€reach€the€issues€of€whether€the€trial€court€improperly€denied€the€plaintiffððsÐ 8 ˆ Ðmotion€to€amend€her€complaint€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€15€or€TennesseeÐ $ t ÐCode€Annotated€section€20„1„119.€€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔIn€the€course€of€further€proceedingsÔf  ÔÔg Ô,€the€parties€may€useÔf  ÔÔg Ô€theÐ  ` Ðprovisions€ofÔf  ÔÔg Ô€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€56„7„1206(e)€to€pursue€litigation€against€otherÐ ü L  Ðparties.€€Ð è 8  ÐÓ  Óò òÌCONCLUSIONó óÐ À  ÐÓ‘ÓÌà  àAlthough€the€facts€of€this€case€are€rather€unique,€we€hold€that€a€plaintiff€may€properlyÐ ˜è  Ðcommence€an€action€under€the€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€provisions€of€the€uninsured€motorist€statutes,€Tenn.€CodeÐ „Ô  ÐAnn.€ðððð€56„7„1201(e),€56„7„1206(b),€when:€(1)€the€plaintiff€satisfies€the€requirements€of€section€56„Ð pÀ Ð7„1201(e),€including€undertaking€reasonable€efforts€to€identify€the€owner€or€operator€of€the€otherÐ \¬ Ðvehicle;€(2)€the€plaintiff€does€not€actually€know€the€identity€of€the€owner€or€operator€of€the€otherÐ H˜ Ðvehicle€at€the€time€of€filing€the€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€action;€and€(3)€the€plaintiff€has€notified€her€insurer,Ð 4„ Ðbefore€commencing€the€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€action,€of€the€reasonable€efforts€taken€to€discover€the€identityÐ  p Ðof€the€other€owner€or€operator€and€of€the€results€of€the€investigation.€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àAlthough€both€parties€in€this€case€have€apparently€narrowed€the€universe€of€possible€driversÐ ä4 Ðof€the€other€vehicle,€the€Ôf  ÔÔg Ôidentity€of€the€other€Ôf  ÔÔg Ôdriver€Ôf  ÔÔg Ôis€Ôf  ÔÔg Ôstill€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ôat€issueÔf  ÔÔg Ô,€and€he€remains€the€subject€ofÐ Ð  Ðsome€dispute.€€Accordingly,€because€the€plaintiff€took€reasonable€steps€to€discover€the€identity€andÐ ¼  Ðaddresses€of€the€possible€drivers,€and€because€the€plaintiff€communicated€this€information€to€herÐ ¨ø Ðinsurer€a€full€nine€months€before€she€filed€suit,€we€conclude€that€the€plaintiff€properly€commencedÐ ”ä Ðsuit€under€the€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€procedures€of€the€uninsured€motorist€statutes.€€The€judgment€of€the€CourtÐ €Ð Ðof€Appeals€is€reversed,€and€this€case€to€the€Shelby€County€Circuit€Court€is€remanded€for€furtherÐ l¼ Ðproceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àCosts€of€this€appeal€are€assessed€to€the€appellee,€Amerisure€Companies.Ð 0"€  ÐÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________Ð ¸'#& Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUSTICEÔf  Ôò òÔg ÔÐ ¤(ô#' ЇÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÔf  Ôó óÔg Ô