Warren L. Gookin and Marjorie E. Gookin, for Themselves and All Other Similarly Situated State Farm Fire And… (Wyoming 1992)

Summary

The court held that the district court never acquired personal jurisdiction over the insurer because the attempted substituted service was not performed by a properly appointed process server and the plaintiffs failed to complete the additional statutory service steps. Actual notice did not cure the failure to comply strictly with the service statute and procedural rules. The judgment was reversed with instructions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Holding

Validity of the initial delivery of process. The attempted delivery of the alias summons and amended complaint to the Insurance Commissioner was ineffective because the private investigator was not specially appointed by the clerk to serve process, and the record did not evidence a valid appointment.

Statutory requirements for substituted service on a foreign insurer. Substituted service under the insurance statute requires compliance with three cumulative steps: timely mailing by the plaintiff or attorney of notice and a copy of process to the insurer, receipt or a qualifying postal receipt, and timely filing of an affidavit showing compliance.

Effect of actual notice and due process. The insurer's actual receipt of the process did not cure the plaintiffs' failure to comply with the prescribed service requirements.

Waiver of personal-jurisdiction objection. The insurer did not waive its objection to personal jurisdiction by answering and litigating the merits after its motion to quash was denied, because it consistently preserved the objection in its responsive pleadings.

Summary

Holding

Cited by