{"id":2237,"date":"2018-04-07T15:47:01","date_gmt":"2018-04-07T23:47:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trainingpips.com\/?page_id=2237"},"modified":"2019-04-18T03:26:49","modified_gmt":"2019-04-18T11:26:49","slug":"ps-102-chapter-5-article-1-non-resident-motorist-act-martin-v-meier","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/ps-102-a-course-outline\/ps-102-understanding-case-summaries\/ps-102-chapter-5-an-introduction-to-non-resident-motorist-act-case-law\/ps-102-chapter-5-article-1-non-resident-motorist-act-martin-v-meier\/","title":{"rendered":"PS 102 – Chapter 5 – Article 1 – Non Resident Motorist Act – Martin v Meier"},"content":{"rendered":"

Martin v. Meir <\/span><\/strong>
\n111 Wn. 2d 471, 760 P.2d 925 (1988)<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Editor’s Note: Although the Nonresident Motorist Act has changed since this case<\/a> was decided it still provides a number of useful lessons regarding the service of a summons and complaint<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Facts<\/strong><\/span>
\nPlaintiff Martin and Defendant<\/a> Meier were involved in an automobile accident in Whatcom County<\/a>, Washington. The accident report listed a Seattle address for defendant<\/a> and gave his occupation as a student at Western Washington University. In the month before the running of the 3 year statute of limitations<\/a>, Plaintiff filed an action<\/a> in King County<\/a> based upon defendant<\/a>’s address given in the accident report. Shortly before filing, Plaintiff attempted to personally serve defendant<\/a> at the Seattle address. That address turned out to be the residence of Defendant<\/a>’s parents. A return of service of not found stated that after diligent search and inquiry, the process server was unable to find defendant<\/a> in King County<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Plaintiff then served the summons and complaint<\/a> on the Secretary of State pursuant to RCW 46.64.040. In accordance with the statute, Plaintiff’s attorney sent a copy of the summons and complaint<\/a> by registered mail to the Seattle address, and made a diligent inquiry among former neighbors of that address. A process server was told that several years before, defendant<\/a> and his wife had moved to California. Furthermore, an investigator’s inquiry at the University informed them that defendant<\/a> was no longer a student.<\/span><\/p>\n

Following service on the Secretary of State, Defendant<\/a> filed a special appearance<\/a> to contest jurisdiction<\/a>, claiming that service of process on the Secretary of State was invalid, as he had resided in Washington at all times since the accident. He listed 7 different addresses in Washington in which he resided during the period of time material hereto.<\/span><\/p>\n

Judicial<\/a> History<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Action<\/a> for Damages<\/a> filed in King County<\/a>, later moved to Whatcom County<\/a> Superior Court. Defendant<\/a> moved for dismissal<\/a> of action<\/a> based on insufficient service of process. The trial court granted the motion<\/a> to dismiss. The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal<\/a>, holding that RCW 46.64.040 must be strictly construed, and that because defendant<\/a> was within the state at all times during the limitations period, service under the statute was invalid. Supreme Court reversed the judgment<\/a> and remanded the case<\/a> for trial.<\/span><\/p>\n

Specific Issue<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Does the nonresident motorist statute only apply where plaintiff can conclusively establish that the defendant<\/a> is a nonresident or resident who has departed the state? No<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Holding<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The nonresident motorist statute not only applies where plaintiff can conclusively establish that the defendant<\/a> is a nonresident or resident who has departed the state, but also where there is a reasonable<\/a> basis to conclude that this is the case<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Due diligence<\/a> under the statute requires plaintiff make honest and reasonable<\/a> efforts to locate the defendant<\/a>. Not all conceivable means need be employed, but, at least, the accident report, if made, must be examined and the information<\/a> therein investigated with reasonable<\/a> effort. In addition, if plaintiff has information<\/a> available pertaining to defendant<\/a>’s whereabouts other than that contained in the accident report, plaintiff must make reasonable<\/a> efforts to investigate based on that information<\/a> as well.<\/span><\/p>\n

Reasoning<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Service on the Secretary of State in some cases where plaintiff may<\/a> not know where defendant<\/a> is located is consonant with the State’s interest in regulating the use of highways for the protection of persons and property within the state, the interest is not dependent on defendant<\/a>’s actual location. The statutory procedure satisfies due process requirements.<\/span><\/p>\n

C4PSE Comment<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Here is yet another example where proper due diligence<\/a> is key.<\/span><\/p>\n

A process server needs to be able to supply the client with an accurate and detailed declaration<\/a> describing the steps taken in an attempt to locate and serve a target. Simple boiler plate language using phrases such as “due and diligent search” are not sufficient.<\/span><\/p>\n

Special Note<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Non Resident Motorist Statute, RCW 46.64.040, was amended in 2003. This statute now applies to those cases where the defendant<\/a> cannot be found in the state after a due and diligent search. The requirements that the defendant<\/a> has left the state, or that the plaintiff has good and reasonable<\/a> cause<\/a> to believe such, no longer applies.<\/span><\/p>\n

See the course lesson on this topic. See also Huff vs Budbill.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Martin v. Meir 111 Wn. 2d 471, 760 P.2d 925 (1988) Editor’s Note: Although the Nonresident Motorist Act has changed since this case<\/a> was decided it still provides a number of useful lessons regarding the service of a summons and complaint<\/a>. Facts Plaintiff Martin and Defendant<\/a> Meier were involved in an automobile accident in Whatcom […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":2235,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-2237","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2237","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2237"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2237\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2235"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2237"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}