Summary
The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Progressive Casualty Insurance Company in a personal injury action involving an uninsured motorist. The court held that Tennessee Code Annotated section 56-7-1206(d) was not triggered because the uninsured motorist was located at his residence but refused service, despite the summons being marked with language indicating that he was not found after diligent search and inquiry. Because the plaintiff did not timely reissue process under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 3, her claim against the uninsured motorist was time-barred and she could not proceed directly against Progressive.
Holdings
- Section 56-7-1206(d) was not triggered because the process server's written statements contradicted the statutory meaning of a "Not to be found in my county" return. The process server indicated that Neal was found at his last known address and was avoiding service, rather than being absent from the county or concealing himself so as to evade service.
- Because section 56-7-1206(d) did not apply, Urquia was required to comply with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 3 by reissuing process against Neal within one year of the prior issuance. Her failure to do so caused the statute of limitations to run against the claim, preventing a direct action against Progressive.
- Progressive was entitled to summary judgment because the claim against Neal was time-barred and Urquia therefore could not maintain a direct action against Progressive.
Questions Presented
- Whether Tennessee Code Annotated section 56-7-1206(d) was triggered when the summons issued to the uninsured motorist was stamped with language equivalent to "Not to be found in my county," despite the process server's notation indicating that the motorist had been located and was avoiding service.
- Whether Urquia could proceed directly against Progressive without reissuing process against Neal under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 3.
- Whether summary judgment was properly granted to Progressive.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (23)
- Staples v. CBL & Assocs., Inc., 15 S.W.3d 83, 88 (Tenn. 2000)(followed)
- Mershon v. HPT TA Props. Tr., No. M2023-01334-COA-R3-CV, 2024 WL 4471404, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 11, 2024), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Mar. 13, 2025)(followed)
- Martin v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 271 S.W.3d 76, 83-84 (Tenn. 2008)(followed)
- TWB Architects, Inc. v. The Braxton, LLC, 578 S.W.3d 879, 889 (Tenn. 2019)(followed)
- Rye v. Women's Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235, 250, 265 (Tenn. 2015)(followed)
- Jackson v. Thibault, No. E2021-00988-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 14162828, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2022)(followed)
- Winters v. Estate of Jones, 932 S.W.2d 464, 465-66 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996)(followed)
- Little v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 784 S.W.2d 928, 929 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989)(followed)
- Davis v. Grange Mut. Cas. Grp., No. M2016-02239-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL 4331041, at *3-*4, *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2017)(followed)
- Bates v. Greene, 544 S.W.3d 345, 352 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 23.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.