Kenneth E. Collins and Renetta Collins v. Anderson Fork Lift Maintenance Company, et al.; Superior Tire & Rubber Corporation

Summary

The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for Superior Tire & Rubber Corporation in a negligence action arising from a forklift accident. The court held that certified-mail service on an hourly employee did not satisfy Michigan’s personal-service requirements for a foreign corporation, and the record did not establish timely notice sufficient to avoid dismissal under MCR 2.105(K)(3).

Holdings

1. Certified-mail delivery of the summons and complaint to an hourly employee did not satisfy MCR 2.105(D)'s personal-service requirements because plaintiff did not serve an officer, resident agent, director, trustee, or person in charge of the corporation's office or business establishment.
2. MCR 2.105(K)(3) did not bar dismissal because plaintiff failed to present evidence that a person with authority to act for Superior Tire received notice of the action within the time allowed for service.
3. The court deemed plaintiff's discovery argument abandoned because plaintiff supplied no caselaw or developed argument addressing the abuse-of-discretion standard governing discovery orders.
4. Summary disposition for Superior Tire was proper because plaintiff failed to rebut Superior Tire's evidence that no authorized person received timely notice and offered only conclusory speculation regarding Westfall's actions and authority.

Questions Presented

1. Whether certified-mail delivery of the summons and complaint to an hourly employee, rather than personal service on an officer, registered agent, director, trustee, or person in charge of the corporation's office or business establishment, satisfied Michigan's service-of-process requirements.
2. Whether MCR 2.105(K)(3)'s notice provision prevented dismissal despite the failure to comply with the prescribed personal-service methods.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying plaintiff's request to depose the hourly employee who signed for the certified mailing.
4. Whether summary disposition was proper when plaintiff offered only conclusory speculation that the employee transmitted or otherwise acted on the mailing.

Disposition

affirmed