6 S.W.3d 380 (Ky.App. 1998), 1997-CA-000238, Reese v. General American Door Co.
|Citation:||6 S.W.3d 380|
|Party Name:||Robert F REESE and Joann Reese, Appellants, v. GENERAL AMERICAN DOOR COMPANY, Appellee.|
|Attorney:||D. Anthony Brinker, Wehrman & Wehrman, Chartered, Covington, Kentucky, for appellants. Robert B. Cetrulo, Ware, Bryson, West & Kummer, Edgewood, Kentucky, for appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||Before ABRAMSON, DYCHE, and HUDDLESTON, Judges.|
|Case Date:||November 25, 1998|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Kentucky|
Rehearing Denied March 12, 1999.
Discretionary Review Denied by Supreme Court Dec. 9, 1999.
ABRAMSON, Judge 1:
Robert and Joann Reese appeal from a January 9, 1997, order of Kenton Circuit Court making final and appealable its November 14, 1996, summary judgment dismissing the Reeses' products liability complaint against General American Door Company (GADCO) on statute of limitations grounds. Agreeing with the trial court both that this matter is ripe for appeal2 and that the Reeses' claim against GADCO is time barred, we affirm.
In 1989 the Reeses purchased an automatic garage door from Overhead Door of Covington, Inc. On April 17, 1994, as he was attempting to repair the door, Robert Reese suffered a serious injury when part of the door's high-tension spring mechanism suddenly came loose and struck him in the eye. On April 17, 1995, the last day to file suit given Kentucky's one-year limitations period for personal injury lawsuits (KRS 413.140), the Reeses filed suit in federal court against Overhead Door of Covington, Inc. and an affiliated company, Overhead Door Corporation. The complaint alleged that Overhead Door Corporation had supplied the door and that Overhead Door of Covington had sold it to the Reeses and installed it. The Reeses' federal suit was dismissed for incomplete diversity of citizenship among the parties, and on September 29, 1995, within 90 days of the dismissal, the Reeses filed in Kenton Circuit Court an amended complaint seeking to add GADCO as a defendant and alleging that GADCO had manufactured the door. Maintaining that it had not been sued within the limitations period, GADCO successfully moved for summary judgment.
On appeal, the Reeses contend that their amended complaint against GADCO should have been deemed timely pursuant to CR 15.03, which allows in some circumstances amended complaints to be treated as though filed at the time of the original complaint. There is no dispute concerning any material fact and the legal question before this Court is simply whether the trial court correctly determined that CR 15.03 does not reach the circumstances presented by the Reeses. This Court's review of a summary judgment is de novo. Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Service Ctr., Ky., 807 S.W.2d 476 (1991).
CR 15.03, Relation Back of Amendments, provides in pertinent part as follows:
(1) Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence
set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP