FRANK D. JOHNSON AND BETTY J. JOHNSON, APPELLANTS,
v.
TAYLOR RENTAL CENTER, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION; HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION; A-1 SALES AND RENTAL ENTERPRISES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; AND LOUISVILLE LADDER, A DIVISION OF EMERSON ELECTRIC COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court addressed whether an amended complaint adding a new defendant (A-1 Sales and Rental Enterprises, Inc.) could relate back to the original complaint filed within the statute of limitations. The court held that relation back does not apply when an entirely new party is added, only when correcting a misnomer of an existing party.
The court held that the amended complaint does not relate back to the original filing date because relation back applies only to correct a misnomer of an existing party, not to add an entirely new party defendant. The receipt alone was insufficient to provide a basis for extending the statute of limitations.
[1] An amended pleading adding a new party defendant after the statute of limitations has run does not relate back to the original filing date if the amendment seeks to add a…
[2] The relationship between a franchisor and a franchisee, without more, is insufficient to establish that a suit against one party relates back to a timely suit against the…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The rule which permits the relation back of amended pleadings does not apply where an entirely new party is added.”
Establishes the controlling rule that relation back is limited to correcting misnomers, not adding new defendants
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrank Johnson was injured on October 19, 1978, when he fell from a defective ladder. He filed suit on September 20, 1982, naming Taylor Rental Center,…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Misnomer In Pleading cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge.
This appeal involves the relation back of amended pleadings which seek to add a new party defendant subsequent to the running of the statute of limitations.
On September 20, 1982, Frank Johnson, joined by his wife, filed a negligence action alleging that he was injured on October 19, 1978, when he fell from a defective ladder rented from Taylor Rental Center, Inc. Attached to the complaint was a copy of a receipt for the ladder in the name of “Taylor Rental Center,” which contained the words “Franchised By Taylor Rental Corporation, Box 2618, Springfield, Massachusetts.” In its answer filed on October 8, 1982, Taylor Rental Center, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, admitted that it was “doing business in Manatee County State of Florida, involving the rental of tools and equipment.” However, it denied having rented the ladder. In 1983, at a time well beyond four years from the date of the accident, the plaintiffs obtained an order authorizing them to file a third amended complaint adding A-l Sales and Rental Enterprises, Inc., a Florida corporation, as an additional defendant. According to the third amended complaint, the ladder had actually been rented from A-l Sales and Rental Enterprises, Inc., which was operating pursuant to a franchise agreement with Taylor Rental Center, Inc. Upon motion to dismiss, the court entered an order dismissing A-l Sales and Rental Enterprises, Inc., for failure to bring suit against A-l Sales within the period of the statute of limitations.
The plaintiffs assert that their third amended complaint adding A-l Sales and Rental Enterprises, Inc., as a party defendant should relate back to the date of the original complaint, which was filed within the four year statute of limitations. In support of their position they cite several cases which hold that the filing of an amended complaint to add an additional party defendant in order to correct a misnomer relates back to the filing of the original complaint. Cabot v. Clearwater Construction Co., 89 So. 2d 662 (Fla.1956); Hohl v. Croom Motrocross, Inc., 358 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); B & H Sales, Inc. v. Fusco Corp., 342 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Galuppi v. Viele, 232 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 238 So. 2d 109 (Fla.1970); Argenbright v. J.M. Fields Co., 196 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert denied, 201 So. 2d 895 (Fla.1967). The recurrent theme of these cases is that the amendment should be permitted to relate back where it merely changes the capacity in which a defendant has been sued. More often than not, the original defendant lulled the plaintiff into believing that he had sued the correct party until after the statute of limitations expired.
Here, the amendment sought to do more than correct a misnomer. There is no indication of any connection between the two corporations except that of franchisor and franchisee. Although they carry liability insurance with the same company and are represented by the same attorney, these facts do not change the relationship. The rule which permits the relation back of amended pleadings does not apply where an entirely new party is added. Louis v. South Broward Hospital District, 353 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), dismissed, 359 So. 2d 1217 (Fla.1978). Moreover, the issuance of a receipt in the name of “Taylor Rental Center” is insufficient, by itself, to provide a basis for extending the statute of limitations. Hence, the amendment seeking to add A-l Sales and Rental Enterprises, Inc., came too late and does not relate back to a time prior to the running of the statute of limitations.
Affirmed.
SCHEB and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
R.A. Jones & Sons, Inc. v. Holman, 470 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…at situation, the purpose of the statute of limitations would be defeated. 3 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 15.15 [4.-1], and cases cited therein.” Williams v. United States, 405 F. 2d 234, 237 (5th Cir.1968). See Johnson v. Taylor Rental Center, Inc., 458 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (relation back rule inapplicable where effect is to bring new parties into suit); Louis v. South Broward Hospital District, 353 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) dismissed, 359 So. 2d 1217 (Fla.1978) (same). However, addition of a p…1 / 2
-
Totura & Co., Inc. v. Williams, 754 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 2000)…uct, transaction or occurrence set forth in the original pleading. This court has held that “[t]he rule which permits the relation back of amended pleadings does not apply where an entirely new party is added.” Johnson v. Taylor Rental Center, Inc., 458 So. 2d 845, 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (citation omitted). Because Permenter is attempting to add Geico as an entirely new party to his pending action against the other driver, the amended complaint does not relate back to the date of the original complaint. Id.…
-
Rayner v. Aircraft Spruce-Advantage Inc., 38 So. 3d 817 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…t. denied, 238 So. 2d 109 (Fla.1970). “The recurrent theme of these cases is that the amendment should be permitted to relate back where it merely changes the capacity in which a defendant has been sued.” John [*820] son v. Taylor Rental Ctr., Inc., 458 So. 2d 845, 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). “More often than not, the original defendant lulled the plaintiff into believing that he had sued the correct party until after the statute of limitations expired.” Id. In the instant case, Appellant sought to do more than…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cabot v. Clearwater Constr. Co., 89 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 1956)
- Mrs. Betty Galuppi v. Viele, 232 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Roscell Louis v. S. Broward Hosp. Dist. f/a/o/b/o Mem'l Hosp., 353 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Argenbright v. J. M. Fields Co., 196 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Hohl v. Croom Motorcross, Inc., 358 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- B & H Sales, Inc. v. The Fusco Corp., 342 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- State v. Sturgis, 238 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1970)
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Charles Taylor Marine, Inc., 238 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1970)
- Hillsborough Cnty. Tuberculosis & Health Assn. v. Fla. Tuberculosis & Health Ass'n, 201 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 1967)
- J. M. Fields of East Florida v. Argenbright, 201 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 1967)