 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pringle v. Jaganauth9/15/1999
mitations. Bowman v. United States Life Ins. Co., 167 Ga. App. 673 (307 SE2d 134) (1983). The plaintiff has the burden of showing that due diligence was exercised. Starr v. Wimbush, 201 Ga. App. 280, 281 (1) (410 SE2d 776) (1991).
The Pringles' offer as evidence of due diligence three canceled checks to the Secretary of State's Office dated October 9, 1996 and an affidavit by plaintiffs' counsel stating that
to the best of my recollection believe that this office forwarded to the defendant, by certified mail, return receipt requested, a copy of the summons and complaint after the filing of said lawsuit; however I am currently unable to locate same.
However, the record indicates that on January 8, 1997, nine days after the expiration of the statute of limitations, the summons and complaint in this case were received by the Secretary of State. A search of the records maintained by the Secretary of State revealed that the summons and complaint had not been received in that office between the period of September 1, 1996 and January 8, 1997. The Pringles' offer no evidence to support the assertion that the Secretary of State played a role in causing the delay in service of process. The Pringles' only other offer of proof of service upon the defendant is a return receipt dated almost one month before the date suit was filed. Based on this evidence, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Pringles' did not show that they acted in a reasonable and diligent manner in attempting to insure that proper service was made as quickly as possible and properly granted Jaganauth's motion. See Walker v. Hoover, 191 Ga. App. 859, 860 (383 SE2d 208) (1989).
Judgment affirmed. Blackburn, P.J., and Barnes, J., concur.
|