Facts
Donna and Danny Stanaland filed suit against Matthew McCrimmon alleging claims of personal injury and loss of consortium. The trial court dismissed the Stanalands’ complaint with prejudice due to insufficient service because McCrimmon had not been served within the statute of limitations. For context, the statute of limitations on a personal injury claim is two years, whereas the statute of limitations for a loss of consortium claim is four years.
The Stanalands appealed the trial court ruling and argued that the trial court had erred by dismissing Danny’s loss of consortium claim with prejudice because the statute of limitations on that claim had not yet run.
Issue & Holding
Was it improper for the trial to dismiss Danny Stanaland’s loss of consortium claim with prejudice?
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in dismissing the entire action with prejudice as the loss of consortium claim statute of limitations had not yet run.
Reasoning
The Georgia Court of Appeals agreed that the dismissal with prejudice of Danny’s claim was improper. Relying on Griffin v. Stewart, the Court noted that dismissal for insufficient service is a finding by the trial court that service was not perfected within the statute of limitations. 362 Ga. App. 669, 674 (2022). However, Griffin also makes clear that when a trial court dismisses a claim for insufficient service, the court is not deciding whether the plaintiff’s claim is actually barred by the statute of limitations. Id. Griffin states that the court is not allowed to determine the merits of whether the statute of limitations has passed on a motion to dismiss for lack of service. Id.
Following this logic, the Court found that the trial court was correct to dismiss the Stanalands’ complaint, however, Danny’s claim should not have been dismissed with prejudice as it was not the trial court’s job to determine the merits of the statute of limitation argument at the time of the dismissal.
Conclusion
If you face a challenge for insufficient service within the statute of limitation, you’ll want to make sure that the judge is only looking at whether service was perfected within the statute of limitations and not whether your client’s claim may be barred. If your client’s case is dismissed for lack of service, be aware that the ruling is only as to service; the court should not be ruling that the case is barred from court due to passage of the statute of limitation. If you’re in a situation similar to Danny's, where the case is dismissed for lack of proper service, but the statute has not yet run, make sure the dismissal is without prejudice so you preserve your chance to take a second bite at the apple.
Citation:Stanaland et. al. v. McCrimmon, No. A23A0914 (Ga. Ct. App. August 17, 2023)
