Michael Joseph sued the wrong driver after a multi-vehicle collision and later moved to add Tyler Watts after the limitation period had run, arguing that the amended complaint related back because Watts had enough notice of the litigation. The trial court denied Watts’s dispositive motion, and Watts took an interlocutory appeal. The issue was whether pre-suit and insurer correspondence gave Watts the notice required by OCGA 9-11-15 (c) for relation back after Joseph initially sued the vehicle owner instead of the actual driver. The Court of Appeals of Georgia held that the notice showing was insufficient and reversed. It reasoned that an October 2018 letter merely informed Watts of a claim and investigation before any suit existed, and there was no competent evidence that Watts actually received later notice of the filed action before the statute expired. Without timely notice of the institution of the action, the amendment could not relate back, so the claims against Watts were time-barred.