Gailor v. Alsabi distinguished on its facts to permit the original complaint to be amended and relate back when defendant driver died before service, but an Administrator was appointed within the statute of limitations. This occurred even though the statute of limitations had expired at the time of the amendment.
Appellant/plaintiff did not obtain service on defendant driver in car accident prior to defendant driver’s death. An administrator was appointed for the estate before statute of limitations expired. Appellant plaintiff amended complaint in original service and argued the amended complaint related back. Trial court applied Alsabi v. Gailor, but Court of Appeals REVERSED and REMANDED holding the amended complaint related back and not filed untimely in violation of statute of limitations.
“Contrary to the trial court’s interpretation herein, Gailor did not hold that a suit originally filed against a deceased defendant could never be amended past the limitations period. Rather, it held that CR 15.03 does not permit relation back where the proper party did not exist during the limitations period. However, the facts herein are clearly distinguishable. Unlike the administrator in Gailor, the executrix of Johnson’s estate had been appointed almost one year prior to the date Romano filed his original complaint. Thus, this is not a case of a non-existent party at the time suit was originally filed. In fact, the trial court’s conclusion that Gailor supports dismissal even where the Estate (the proper party) actually exists would act to vitiate the specific purpose of the relation back rule. Therefore, unlike Gailor, there remains a question as to whether the Estate knew or should have known about Romano’s action during the limitations period. Accordingly, Romano was entitled to conduct further discovery on the issue of whether the Estate “(a) has received such notice of the institution of the action that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining his defense on the merits, and (b) knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against him” so as to satisfy the requirements of the relation back rule under CR 15.03.”
`
