Montague v. Godfrey

Plaintiff did not prove that he diligently pursued service upon the defendant driver outside the statute of limitations.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Shortly before expiration of the statute of limitation, Taylor Montague brought suit against Vanilda Camilo and her employer, Gary Godfrey, individually and d/b/a Baker Imported Auto Parts “Baker Imported”, seeking damages arising out of an automobile collision. The trial court granted Camilo’s motion to dismiss on the ground that Montague had failed to diligently serve her after the running of the limitation period, and denied Montague’s motion to serve her by publication. The trial court then granted Baker Imported’s motion for summary judgment. Montague now appeals these three rulings. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the grant of Camilo’s motion to dismiss and the denial of Montague’s motion for service by publication, but we reverse the grant of Baker Imported’s motion for summary judgment. The record reflects that on or about June 26, 2002, Montague was in an automobile accident involving a vehicle driven by Camilo and owned by Baker Imported. It is undisputed that at the time of the accident, Camilo was an employee of Baker Imported and was operating the vehicle with the express permission of her employer.

On June 11, 2004, fifteen days before the statute of limitation expired,1 Montague filed the instant personal injury suit naming Camilo and Baker Imported as defendants. The complaint alleged that Camilo was liable because she had negligently stricken the rear of Montague’s vehicle, resulting in serious injury to his person. The complaint further alleged that Baker Imported was jointly and severally liable under theories of negligent entrustment and respondeat superior. Finally, the complaint stated that because the defendants may have been uninsured or underinsured at the time of the accident, Montague was making a claim upon his uninsured motorist carrier for the payment of damages for which the defendants were uninsured or underinsured.

Montague v. Godfrey

Plaintiff did not prove that he diligently pursued service upon the defendant driver outside the statute of limitations.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report