Dian is injured in an accident while driving an off-road vehicle made by Eagle Recreation, Inc., an out-of-state corporation. Dian files a suit against Eagle, alleging negligence, and mails a summons and a copy of the complaint to the firm by certified mail, return receipt requested. The envelope is addressed in part to "Fred, President, Eagle Recreation, Inc." The receipt is returned with the signature of "Glenda" whom a U.S. Postal employee later testifies usually receives mail on the company's behalf. Eagle does not respond to the suit. In a default judgment, Dian is awarded damages of $500,000. Later, Fred claims that he was not notified of the suit and asks the court to set aside the judgment. What is the issue in this set of facts? What rule applies? What should be the result on the

Question

application of the rule? Why?

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

The sufficiency of the service of process is at the center of the dispute in this situation. The requirements for sufficient service of process are that a summons and a copy of a complaint be delivered to the proper party. Here, the defendant was a corporation and the service was addressed to the corporation's president. The documents were sent via first-class mail, return receipt requested. Generally, service of process is proper if the documents are delivered to a person authorized by a corporation to receive the service. The court should not grant Eagle and Fred's motion to set aside the judgment. Dian met the requirements for serving an out-of-state corporation. Significantly, she addressed the service to Fred, not to the corporation. Glenda was an Eagle employee who regularly received mail on her employer's behalf. Glenda's notice of the action can thus be imputed to Eagle and Fred.