 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
GARNER8/23/1993
sheriff did not have the authority to accept service on behalf of the respective defendants. Rule 4 (d)(1) and (3) SCRCP. The defendants concede that they waived improper service as a defense to this action by their failure to raise the issue in their answers. Rule 12(h) SCRCP. Nevertheless, the defendants maintain that they still are entitled to assert that the improper service delayed the commencement of this action until each defendant made a voluntary appearance at the time their respective answers were filed in mid-November 1989. We disagree. The failure to assert improper service for over two years until the summary judgment motions in 1991 waives any issue regarding the service. Accordingly, we reverse the granting of the defendants' motions for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations defense.
Finally, Ms. Garner's son also argues the trial court's refusal to allow him to amend his complaint to add Dr. Palles as a defendant was based on an erroneous determination that the health care providers' statute of limitations applied to
Unlike a number of other states, South Carolina's
We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
FINNEY, J., COSTA M. PLEICONES, JASPER M. CURETON and CAROL CONNER, Acting Associate Justices, concur.
Page 1 2 3 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|