Laiuppa v. Moritz — dissenting

Summary

The dissent would have concluded that the defendant's timely appearance through counsel in the original action gave her actual or effective notice of the plaintiff's claims, despite defective service of process. It reasoned that notice to attorneys acting within the scope of their representation is imputed to the client and that the remedial savings statute should be construed to preserve an opportunity for a merits determination when the limitations-period purpose has been satisfied. Justice Ecker, joined by Justice D’Auria, would therefore have treated the original action as timely commenced under the savings statute.