Government Employees v. Louis Canestri (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (# 103)

The plaintiff, Government Employees Insurance Company, commenced the present action by service of process against the defendant, Louis Canestri, on December 30, 2009, asserting its rights to recover funds that it paid to its insured pursuant to the uninsured motorist provision of an insurance policy.   In the operative complaint, the plaintiff alleges that on or about January 6, 2008, the defendant struck Margaret Lopes, who had an insurance policy with the plaintiff, while operating a motor vehicle that he owned.   The complaint further alleges that because Lopes sustained injuries in the collision, the plaintiff was obligated to make payments to her.   The instant subrogation action seeks to recover the amounts paid to Lopes from the defendant, Louis Canestri.

On February 22, 2010, the defendant filed an answer denying the allegations.   On May 10, 2010, he filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking to have the action dismissed because there is no dispute that he was not, in fact, the driver involved in the collision with Lopes;  and the Statute of Limitations has run, preventing the plaintiff from asserting any legal claims against his wife, who was the driver of the car involved in the collision with Lopes.   The plaintiff filed an Objection to the Motion (but no Memorandum of Law) and a Request to Amend the Complaint on May 20, 2010.   In the Amended Complaint, the plaintiff seeks to add Maria Canestri as a defendant;  and to rename Louis Canestri as a defendant pursuant to the family car doctrine.   The court heard oral argument at short calendar on June 1, 2010.   For reasons more fully set forth herein, this court grants the motion for summary judgment.

There is no dispute that Maria Canestri, not Louis Canestri, was the operator of the vehicle involved in the collision with Ms. Lopes.   There is also no dispute that the correct identity of the driver was known to Lopes and was available to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of this action.   Additionally, there is no dispute that this action was served upon and commenced solely against Louis Canestri as the tortfeasor.   Further, there is no dispute that when the plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint, on May 20, 2010, the statute of limitations had run.   Therefore, the only question for this court is whether or not the Amendment relates back to the initial complaint, which was timely filed.

“An amended complaint will be treated as filed at the time of the original complaint if it relates back to the original complaint.”  Jonap v. Silver, 1 Conn.App. 550, 555, 474 A.2d 800 (1984).  “․ [I]n determining whether the relation back doctrine applies to an amended pleading, we inquire whether the amendment expands or amplifies the original facts alleged in support of a cause of action, or whether the amendment presents a new and different factual situation that would require the presentation of different evidence.”   (Internal citations omitted.)  Sherman v. Ronco, 294 Conn. 548, 556, 985 A.2d 1042 (2010).  “Further, if the amendment is deemed to be a substitution or entire change of party, it will not be permitted ․ If the amendment does not affect the identity of the party sought to be described in the complaint, but merely corrects the description of that party, the amendment will be allowed.”  Palazzo v. Delrose, 91 Conn.App. 222, 880 A.2d 169 cert. denied 276 Conn. 912, 886 A.2d 426 (2005).

Notwithstanding the plaintiff's argument to the contrary, the Amended Complaint does more than simply expand upon or clarify the identity of the party.   The amendment seeks to add an entirely new and different party, Maria Canestri.   The fact that this new party is the wife of the defendant, who resides with the defendant, is irrelevant and does not relieve the plaintiff of its legal responsibility to identify and serve the correct person.   Maria Canestri was the alleged tortfeasor, not Louis Canestri.   Maria Canestri was not served with notice of this action prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

Additionally, the complaint does more than merely amplify the original facts.   In the original complaint, Louis Canestri received notice that he was being sued as a tortfeasor.   In the amendment, Louis Canestri is sued as agent, under a different legal doctrine.   Louis Canestri did receive notice of this action as a tortfeasor, but did not receive notice as an agent pursuant to the family law doctrine.   Therefore, the amendment, which adds him as a defendant pursuant to the family law doctrine does not relate back to the original complaint, either.

For the above stated reason, the court grants the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Robinson, A., J.

Robinson, Angela C., J.