 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Martin v. Triol3/18/1993
Petitioners Edward Triol and Gladys Triol seek review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, Division One, which reversed a King County Superior Court order dismissing a personal injury action by Respondents Glen Martin and Dorothy Martin for lack of personal jurisdiction
because of insufficiency of service of process. We granted review on June 2, 1992. We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals, but reverse it in part.
Factual and Procedural History
On April 25, 1990, Respondents Glen and Dorothy Martin (Respondents) filed a complaint against Petitioners Edward and Gladys Triol (Petitioners) for personal injuries arising from an automobile accident which occurred in Seattle on May 6, 1987. This filing occurred within the 3-year statute of limitations. The filing tolled the statute of limitations and conferred jurisdiction on the court for 90 days until Respondents complied with the service of process requirements of RCW 4.16.170. Respondents first attempted service of process on Petitioners on July 20, 1990, and continued daily through July 25, 1990. Unable to locate the Triols, they served process on the Washington Secretary of State on July 24, 1990, pursuant to RCW 46.64.040.
Petitioners Triol traveled out of state on several occasions during the 3-year period following the accident, although Respondents did not attempt to serve process on them during that period. The Triols were at their Seattle home after the complaint was filed until July 9, 1990, when they began a boat trip on Puget Sound. On July 21, 1990, they sailed
into Canadian waters and were thus not present in the state of Washington on July 24, 1990, the date of substituted service on the Secretary of State.
Petitioners entered a notice of appearance and moved for dismissal, pursuant to CR 12(b), claiming that the court did not have personal jurisdiction over them because of insufficient service of process. They argued to the trial court that RCW 46.64.040 limited substituted service on the Secretary of State to a period of 3 years following the accident. They further argued that the tolling statute, RCW 4.16.170, did not extend this 3-year limitations period and that Respondents, substituted service after May 6, 1990, was not timely.
Respondents countered that the tolling statute, RCW 4.16.170, did in fact extend the time for substituted service beyond the 3-year limitations period and that the Triols' absence from the state at the time service was attempted made substituted service appropriate. Respondents argued, alternatively, that the Triols' departures from the state during the 3-year period following the accident justified use of substituted service during the 90-day extension period.
The trial court, the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez, in dismissing the case by order dated October 24, 1990, ruled as untimely Respondents' substituted service on the Secretary of State, accomplished within 90 days following filing of the complaint, but more than 3 years after the accident giving rise to this action. Finding that the attempted service of process did not effect personal jurisdiction over Petitioners, the trial court dismissed the case.
Respondents appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Court of Appeals, Division One. They made the same arguments to the Court of Appeals that they made to the trial court. Petitioners Triol responded that the statutory limit for substituted service could not be extended by the "90-day rule", and that, in any event, substituted serv
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|