Laiuppa v. Moritz — dissenting

Summary

The dissent would have concluded that the defendant had actual or effective notice of the original action because her attorneys appeared on her behalf and actively litigated the case before the limitations period expired. It reasoned that notice to attorneys acting within the scope of their representation is attributable to the client and that the savings statute should be liberally construed to permit adjudication on the merits despite defective service. The dissent would therefore have treated the original action as timely commenced for purposes of the savings statute. Ecker, J., joined by D’Auria, J., dissented from the majority’s contrary conclusion requiring evidence of the defendant’s or her agent’s receipt of the process.