Green v. Daimler Benz
1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12737, 31 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 491, 157 F.R.D. 340 (1994)
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a), an action generally must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest; however, courts should permit substitution of the real party in interest, with relation-back effect, if an understandable mistake was made regarding the proper party to sue and the plaintiff promptly seeks substitution after the defendant objects.
Facts:
- On April 4, 1989, a Certificate of Title showed 'Infants Children & Youth Ltd' (IC & Y) as the owner of a Mercedes-Benz automobile.
- On September 30, 1990, an Application for Pennsylvania Vehicle Registration also showed IC & Y as the owner of the Mercedes, with Gerald Green signing as 'President'.
- Gerald F. Green held an insurance policy for the Mercedes-Benz in his own name with Metropolitan Insurance Co.
- Around December 28, 1990, Gerald Green became stuck in a snow bank while driving the Mercedes, and the car allegedly caught fire due to a defect.
- Metropolitan Insurance Co. paid Gerald Green $62,556.50 in insurance proceeds for the property damage to the Mercedes, less his $1,000 deductible.
- After paying Dr. Green, Metropolitan Insurance Co. held the subrogation interest in the damaged automobile.
- On May 21, 1991, a Certificate of Title for the Mercedes-Benz showed Metropolitan Insurance Co. as the owner.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1992, Dr. Gerald F. Green commenced a suit by filing a writ of summons in the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County (a state trial court) against the manufacturer, wholesaler, and retailer of the Mercedes.
- Dr. Green filed the complaint on June 23, 1994.
- On or about July 15, 1994, defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- On August 9, 1994, defendants moved for summary judgment in the District Court, claiming Dr. Green was not the real party in interest.
- Dr. Green responded to the defendants' motion for summary judgment by requesting substitution of Metropolitan Insurance Co. as the plaintiff.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a) permit the substitution of an insurer as the real party in interest for an insured plaintiff, with relation-back effect to avoid a statute of limitations bar, when the original plaintiff, though not the owner of the insured property, held the insurance policy, and the substitution is sought promptly after the defendant objects?
Opinions:
Majority - Dalzell, District Judge
Yes, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a) permits the substitution of Metropolitan for Dr. Green as the real party in interest, with the substitution relating back to the original filing, thereby avoiding a statute of limitations bar. The court reasoned that Federal Rule 17(a) generally requires the real party in interest to prosecute an action, and an insurer with a subrogation interest (like Metropolitan) is the real party in interest. However, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2002(d) allows subrogated insurers to sue in the insured's name to avoid jury prejudice, explaining why the state court action was initially filed by Dr. Green. The 1966 amendment to Rule 17(a) explicitly states that an action should not be dismissed for not being prosecuted by the real party in interest until a reasonable time has been allowed for substitution after an objection. The purpose of this amendment is to prevent forfeiture when the proper party to sue is difficult to determine or an understandable mistake has been made. The court found that Metropolitan's assumption that Dr. Green, the policyholder, also held title to the Mercedes was an understandable mistake, not careless or misleading, especially given the differing state rule. Furthermore, Dr. Green promptly requested substitution after defendants first objected via their summary judgment motion. The mandatory relation-back provision of Rule 17(a) ensures that the substitution has the same effect as if the action had been commenced in the name of the real party in interest, thus protecting Metropolitan from any expired statute of limitations. Therefore, the court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment as moot due to the permitted substitution.
Analysis:
This case highlights the interplay between state and federal procedural rules regarding real parties in interest, particularly upon removal to federal court. It underscores the protective nature of Federal Rule 17(a)'s 1966 amendment, ensuring that cases are not dismissed due to honest and understandable mistakes in identifying the proper plaintiff. The decision reinforces the mandatory nature of Rule 17(a)'s relation-back provision, providing a critical mechanism to save meritorious claims from statute of limitations bars when a party substitution is deemed appropriate. Future cases will rely on this precedent to assess whether a mistake was 'understandable' and if a substitution request was made within a 'reasonable time after objection' to apply the Rule 17(a) amendment.
