Tennessee Supreme Court
Billie Gail Hall, as Surviving Spouse and Administratrix of the Estate of Billy R. Hall, Deceased v. Douglas B…
August 26, 20102010 Tenn. LEXIS 684
Summary
The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that the employees who signed for service of process were not agents authorized by appointment to receive service for either the individual physician or the medical corporation, and that the defendants did not waive their insufficiency‑of‑process defense. Consequently, the one‑year statute of limitations barred the malpractice claim.
Holding
- Whether an employee who signs for certified mail is an agent authorized by appointment to receive service of process on behalf of an individual defendant under Rule 4.04(1).. No; the authority to sign for certified mail does not, by itself, confer authority to accept service of process on behalf of an individual defendant.
- Whether an employee who signs for certified mail is an agent authorized by appointment to receive service of process on behalf of a corporate defendant under Rule 4.04(4).. No; the authority to sign for certified mail does not, without more, make the employee an authorized agent for service of process on a corporation.
- Whether the defendants waived their insufficiency‑of‑process defense by participating in the litigation after raising it in their answer.. No; the defense was properly raised in the answer and was not waived, and the statute of limitations has therefore expired.
Docket W2007-02611-SC-R11-CV
Cited authorities
- Tenn. R. Civ. P. 3
- Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04
- Rule 4.04
- Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 4.04(1)
- Rule 4.04(1)
- Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 4.04(1)
- Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 4.04(4)
- Rule 4.04