{"id":2266,"date":"2018-04-08T12:39:13","date_gmt":"2018-04-08T20:39:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trainingpips.com\/?page_id=2266"},"modified":"2019-04-18T03:25:11","modified_gmt":"2019-04-18T11:25:11","slug":"ps-102-chapter-8-article-3-service-on-an-entity-reiner-vs-pittsburg-des-moines-corp","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/ps-102-a-course-outline\/ps-102-understanding-case-summaries\/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\/","title":{"rendered":"PS 102 – Chapter 8 – Article 3 – Service on an Entity – Reiner vs Pittsburg Des Moines Corp"},"content":{"rendered":"

Summary
\nReiner v. Pittsburg Des Moines Corp., 101 Wn.2d 475, 680 P.2d 55 (1984)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

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

An injured worker sought recovery from several defendants including an out of state (foreign) corporation<\/a>.  A process server took the summons and complaint<\/a> to the home of Charles Robinson, an employee of defendant<\/a> corporation<\/a>. 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<\/a>.  Mrs. Robinson then took the papers to her husband who was at home watching television. <\/span>
\n
\n<\/strong><\/u><\/span>Judicial<\/a> History<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Trial court found service upon Lucienne Robinson did not constitute service upon a foreign corporation<\/a>.  The Court of Appeals reversed.  Supreme Court held that the manner of service met the statutory requirements. <\/span><\/p>\n

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

    \n
  1. Is it necessary that express authority to receive or accept service of process be conferred by the corporation<\/a> on the person<\/a> served?  No.<\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n
  2. Is service on the wife of an agent<\/a> for service of process at the agent<\/a>’s home adequate to confer jurisdiction<\/a> over a foreign corporation<\/a>?  Yes.<\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

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

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

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

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

    As a corporation<\/a> is a fictitious entity<\/a>, it acts wholly through its representative agents.  In order to effectively serve a foreign corporation<\/a> under RCW 4.28.080(10)<\/a>, 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)<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

    This is an unusual circumstance. If you read the RCW, it makes no mention of leaving the documents at the agent<\/a>’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.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    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>.  A process server took the summons and complaint<\/a> to the home of Charles Robinson, an employee of defendant<\/a> corporation<\/a>. Charles Robinson’s title was manager of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":2260,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-2266","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2266","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=2266"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2266\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2260"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2266"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}