You dont have javascript enabled! Please enable it!

Process Serving 102 – Case Law

PS 102 – Understanding Case Summaries
PS 102 – Chapter 1 – An Introduction to Personal Service Case Law
1 Topic
PS 102 – Chapter 1 – Article 1 – Personal Service Held Invalid – Gross vs Sunding
PS 102 – Chapter 2 – An Introduction to Abode Service
9 Topics
PS 102 – Chapter 2 – Article 1 – Abode Service Upheld – Lino vs Hole
PS 102 – Chapter 2 – Article 2 – Abode Service Upheld – Chase v. Starkweather
PS 102 – Chapter 2 – Article 3 – Abode Service Upheld – Sheldon v Fettig
PS 102 – Chapter 2 – Article 4 – Abode Service Held Invalid – McCann v. Orth
PS 102 – Chapter 2 – Article 5 – Abode Service Upheld – Wichert vs Cardwell
PS 102 – Chapter 2 – Article 6 – Abode Service Held Invalid – Farmer vs Davis
PS 102 – Chapter 2 – Article 7 – Abode Service Held Invalid – Salts vs Estes
PS 102 – Chapter 2 – Article 8 – Abode Service Held Invalid – Gerean v. Martin-Joven
PS 102 – Chapter 2 – Article 9 – Abode Service Held Invalid – Blankenship v. Kaldor
PS 102 – Chapter 3 – An Introduction to Immunity from Service Case Law
2 Topics
PS 102 – Chapter 3 – Article 1 – Immunity from Service – State ex rel Gunn v. Superior Court
PS 102 – Chapter 3 – Article 2 – Immunity from Service – Anderson vs Ivarsson
PS 102 – Chapter 4 – An Introduction to Due Diligence Case Law
6 Topics
PS 102 – Chapter 4 – Article 1 – Due Diligence – Brennan vs Hurt
PS 102 – Chapter 4 – Article 2 – Due Diligence – Painter v. Olney
PS 102 – Chapter 4 – Article 3 – Due Diligence – Chase v. Carney
PS 102 – Chapter 4 – Article 4 – Due Diligence – Parkash vs Perry
PS 102 – Chapter 4 – Article 5 – Due Diligence – Carras v Johnson
PS 102 – Chapter 4 – Article 6 – Due Diligence – Wells Fargo v Ngy
PS 102 – Chapter 5 – An Introduction to Non Resident Motorist Act Case Law
3 Topics
PS 102 – Chapter 5 – Article 1 – Non Resident Motorist Act – Martin v Meier
PS 102 – Chapter 5 – Article 2 – Non Resident Motorist Act – Harvey v Obermeit
PS 102 – Chapter 5 – Article 3 – Non Resident Motorist Act – Martin vs Triol
PS 102 – Chapter 6 – An Introduction to Evasion of Service Case Law
5 Topics
PS 102 – Chapter 6 – Article 1 – Evasion of Service – State vs Vahl
PS 102 – Chapter 6 – Article 2 – Evasion of Service – Weiss vs Glemp
PS 102 – Chapter 6 – Article 3 – Evasion of Service – Diversified Wood vs Johnson
PS 102 – Chapter 6 – Article 4 – Evasion of Service – United Pacific Insurance vs Discount Company
PS 102 – Chapter 6 – Article 5 – Evasion of Service – Mann vs Hobbick
PS 102 – Chapter 7 – An Introduction to Defendant Instructed Service Case Law
1 Topic
PS 102 – Chapter 7 – Article 1 – Instructed Service – Thayer vs Edmonds
PS 102 – Chapter 8 – An Introduction to Service on an Entity Case Law
4 Topics
PS 102 – Chapter 8 – Article 1 – Service on an Entity – Dolby vs Worthy
PS 102 – Chapter 8 – Article 2 – Service on an Entity – Lybbert vs Grant County
PS 102 – Chapter 8 – Article 3 – Service on an Entity – Reiner vs Pittsburg Des Moines Corp
PS 102 – Chapter 8 – Article 4 – Service on an Entity – Weber vs Associated Surgeons
PS 102 – Chapter 9 – An Introduction to Time Computation Case Law
1 Topic
PS 102 – Chapter 9 – Article 1 – Time Computation – Stikes Woods vs City of Lacey
PS 102 – Chapter 10 – An Introduction to Who May Serve Case Law
2 Topics
PS 102 – Chapter 10 – Article 1 – Who May Serve – Brown-Edwards vs Powell
PS 102 – Chapter 10 – Article 2 – Who May Serve – Scanlan vs Townsend
PS 102 – Chapter 11 – An Introduction to Statutes of Limitation
1 Topic
PS 102 – Chapter 11 – Article 1 – Statute of Limitations – Sidis vs Brodie Dohrmann Inc
Previous Topic
Next Topic

PS 102 – Chapter 8 – Article 3 – Service on an Entity – Reiner vs Pittsburg Des Moines Corp

Process Serving 102 – Case Law PS 102 – Chapter 8 – An Introduction to Service on an Entity Case Law PS 102 – Chapter 8 – Article 3 – Service on an Entity – Reiner vs Pittsburg Des Moines Corp

Summary
Reiner v. Pittsburg Des Moines Corp., 101 Wn.2d 475, 680 P.2d 55 (1984)

Facts

An injured worker sought recovery from several defendants including an out of state (foreign) corporation.  A process server took the summons and complaint to the home of Charles Robinson, an employee of defendant corporation. Charles Robinson’s title was manager of “site support services”.   Lucienne Robinson, who is not an employee but is the wife of Charles Robinson, answered the door.  The process server asked her if this was the residence of Charles Robinson.  When she replied that it was, the server handed her the summons and complaint.  Mrs. Robinson then took the papers to her husband who was at home watching television. 

Judicial History

Trial court found service upon Lucienne Robinson did not constitute service upon a foreign corporation.  The Court of Appeals reversed.  Supreme Court held that the manner of service met the statutory requirements. 

Specific Issues

  • Is it necessary that express authority to receive or accept service of process be conferred by the corporation on the person served?  No.
  • Is service on the wife of an agent for service of process at the agent’s home adequate to confer jurisdiction over a foreign corporation?  Yes.

Holding

It is sufficient service on a foreign corporation if authority to receive service may be reasonably and justly implied.  Service on the spouse, after insuring that the home was the abode of the agent, meets statutory requirements.

Reasoning

The question turns on the character of the agent, and in the absence of express authority given by the corporation, on a review of the surrounding facts and the inferences which may be properly be drawn therefrom.  Although Charles Robinson had not been designated the statutory agent for service of process, his title implies that he possessed sufficient discretionary authority to act in a representative capacity. 

As a corporation is a fictitious entity, it acts wholly through its representative agents.  In order to effectively serve a foreign corporation under RCW 4.28.080(10), one of its qualified agents must be personally served.  Service on a spouse in or near the vicinity of the house of usual abode satisfies the terms of RCW 4.28080(10).

C4PSE Comment

This is an unusual circumstance. If you read the RCW, it makes no mention of leaving the documents at the agent’s residence with a spouse. However, the Supreme Court ruled that this was good service. As process servers it is important to know about these different instances of service but to tread very carefully around them. Do not make it a habit of serving in a manner other than how the RCWs dictate, all it would take is a slight change in circumstance for the exact same service to be thrown out of court. Ultimately, get written instructions from your client, allowing service in a manner other than that described in the RCW.

Previous Topic
Back to Lesson
Next Topic