Isaias Tessema v. Catherine Ann Moulthrop

Fairfax, Virginia, personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff on a car wreck bicycle claim.



On April 15, 2017, Catherine Ann Moulthrop and Isaias Tessema were involved in a

vehicle-bicycle collision. Moulthrop was the driver, and Tessema was the cyclist. On June 15,

2017, State Farm responded to a claim inquiry from Tessema. The letter to Tessema's counsel

identified "Catherine A. Moulthrop” as "[o]ur insured,” and said, "We have carefully considered

the facts of this accident. Based on our investigation, we do not believe our insured was legally

liable for your damages. In the absence of legal liability, we could not be justified in making

settlement. Therefore, we must deny payment of this claim.”



Two years later and just shy of the statute of limitations, Tessema filed a complaint on

April 9, 2019, against "Katherine A. Illingworth AKA Katherine A. Multhrop.” Then, on

January 2, 2020, Tessema served the complaint on Illingworth, née Moulthrop—a woman living

in Colorado with no connection to the accident. The next day, Illingworth notified Tessema's

counsel that she was not the correct party in the suit. So, Tessema moved the Fairfax Circuit

Court for leave to amend his complaint and correct a misnomer under Code § 8.01-6. In his

motion, Tessema claimed that State Farm was on notice of the claim since 2017. Notably absent

from the motion and supporting affidavit, however, is any claim or evidence informing the court

that Moulthrop or State Farm had notice of the institution of Tessema's action. But, by order

entered February 5, 2020, the court granted the motion, deemed Tessema's amended complaint

filed as of February 5, 2020, and related the amended complaint back to the original filing date.

"Katherine A. Illingworth AKA Katherine A. Multhrop” was dismissed from the case.



* * *

A nonsuit to correct a misnomer does not save a plaintiff from the protective

preconditions in Code § 8.01-6. So a refiled action after a nonsuit to cure a misnomer cannot relate back to the first filing date without timely notice of the institution of the action to the proper defendant within the statute of limitations. No such notice was g iven here. For these reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment.