holding that where incorrectly named defendant filed a motion to dismiss and an answer with affirmative defenses and actively participated in discovery, it “led the plaintiff to believe that the correct defendant had been sued” and that the plaintiff was therefore entitled to amend its complaint to correct the misnomer
How later courts described this case
- holding that where incorrectly named defendant filed a motion to dismiss and an answer with affirmative defenses and actively participated in discovery, it “led the plaintiff to believe that the correct defendant had been sued” and that the plaintiff was therefore entitled to amend its complaint to correct the misnomer
- agreeing that the general rule that a defendant does not have an obligation to advise the plaintiff of his mistake in naming the proper defendant is inapplicable where the incorrectly named defendant, through its overt acts, lulls the plaintiff into a false sense of security
- "[W]here the originally named defendant is related to the proper defendant and, through its participation in the proceedings or otherwise, has led the plaintiff to believe that the correct defendant was sued" the doctrine of relation-back is appropriate.
- similar names, same premises, same principal operating officer, same registered agent, and same attorney
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I agree entirely with the court’s treatment of the “relation back” issue and that the action against the present appellee, Metro Limo, Inc. was consequently not barred by the statute of limitations. Nevertheless, I would affirm the judgment in its favor below on the simple ground that it had no substantive liability for the accident in question.
The trial court found that Metro Limo, Inc.’s involvement in the confusing scenario was that it
permitted taxicabs which paid it a weekly fee to use the logo “Metro Taxi” and Metro phone number on the side of [the] taxicab.
While these facts might arguably give rise to a claim against Metro Taxi Cab Co. Inc., see Mercury Cab Owners’ Ass’n v. Jones, 79 So.2d 782 (Fla.1955); Economy Cabs, Inc. v. Kirkland, 127 Fla. 867 , 174 So. 222 (1937), that defendant had long since won an unap-pealed summary judgment in its favor. No liability may be imposed, however, under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine or otherwise, upon a corporation simply for accepting funds for the use of another company’s name on a taxicab. 2 4A Fla.Jur.2d Automobiles & Other Vehicles § 667 (1994).
. There is no contention that the separate identities of the two corporations should be disregarded nor any legal basis to do so. See Dania Jai-Alai Palace, Inc. v. Sykes, 450 So.2d 1114 (Fla.1984).