A. A pleading which states a claim against a party whose trade name or corporate name is substantially similar to the trade name or corporate name of another entity may be amended at any time by inserting the correct party's name, if such party or its agent had actual notice of the claim prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations for filing the claim.
B. In the event that suit is filed against the estate of a decedent, and filed within the applicable statute of limitations, naming the proper name of estate of the deceased and service is effected or attempted on an individual or individuals as executor, administrator or other officers of the estate, such filing tolls the statute of limitations for said claim in the event the executor, administrator or other officers of the estate are unable to legally receive service at the time service was attempted, or defend suit because their authority as executor, administrator or other officer of the estate excludes defending said actions, or their duties as executor, administrator or other officer of the estate had expired at the time of service or during the time of defending said action.
1999, c. 686.
Notes of Decisions
Idoux v. Est. of Helou, 691 S.E.2d 773 (Va. 2010).
· cites it 32× “The primary issue that we consider in this appeal is whether Code § 8.01-6.2(B) permits a plaintiff, who filed a warrant in debt against an estate, to file a subsequent action to add the proper defendant after the statute of limitations had expired.”
Est. of James v. Peyton, 674 S.E.2d 864 (Va. 2009).
· cites it 4× “saction, or occurrence set forth in the original pleading, (ii) within the limitations period prescribed for commencing the action against the party to be brought in by the amendment, that party or its agent received notice of the institution of the action, (iii) that party will…”
Gearing v. Every Citizen Has Opportunities, Inc., 59 Va. Cir. 41 (2002).
· cites it 9× “Third, she asserts that the two names (ECHO and Lawson Road) are confusing trade or corporate names, and accordingly, Va. Code § 8.01-6.2(A) allows her to amend her pleadings and proceed against Lawson Road.”
Berndtson v. Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., 70 Va. Cir. 345 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2006).
· cites it 4× “Va. Code § 8.01-6.2: A pleading which states a claim against a party whose trade name or corporate name is substantially similar to the trade name or corporate name of another entity, may be amended at any time by inserting the correct party’s name, if such party or its agent…”
Crain v. Chesapeake Gen. Hosp., 79 Va. Cir. 150 (Chesapeake Cir. Ct. 2009).
· cites it 7× “Section 8.01-6.2 of the Code of Virginia permits aplaintiffto substitute the correct name if substantially similar to the defendant’s trade or corporate name.”
Hampton v. Meyer (Va. 2020).
· cites it 3× “No other statutory exception outside the two categories mentioned in Code § 8.01-6.2 has ever been recognized by the legislature.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-6.2(A) — 3 cases
Gearing v. Every Citizen Has Opportunities, Inc., 59 Va. Cir. 41 (2002).
“Third, she asserts that the two names (ECHO and Lawson Road) are confusing trade or corporate names, and accordingly, Va. Code § 8.01-6.2(A) allows her to amend her pleadings and proceed against Lawson Road.”
Est. of James v. Peyton, 674 S.E.2d 864 (Va. 2009).
“saction, or occurrence set forth in the original pleading, (ii) within the limitations period prescribed for commencing the action against the party to be brought in by the amendment, that party or its agent received notice of the institution of the action, (iii) that party will…”
Crain v. Chesapeake Gen. Hosp., 79 Va. Cir. 150 (Chesapeake Cir. Ct. 2009).
“Section 8.01-6.2 of the Code of Virginia permits aplaintiffto substitute the correct name if substantially similar to the defendant’s trade or corporate name.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-6.2(B) — 2 cases
Idoux v. Est. of Helou, 691 S.E.2d 773 (Va. 2010).
“The primary issue that we consider in this appeal is whether Code § 8.01-6.2(B) permits a plaintiff, who filed a warrant in debt against an estate, to file a subsequent action to add the proper defendant after the statute of limitations had expired.”
Est. of James v. Peyton, 674 S.E.2d 864 (Va. 2009).
“saction, or occurrence set forth in the original pleading, (ii) within the limitations period prescribed for commencing the action against the party to be brought in by the amendment, that party or its agent received notice of the institution of the action, (iii) that party will…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.