Summary
The Washington Supreme Court answered a certified question concerning service of process on an authorized foreign insurer. It held that RCW 4.28.080(7)(a) and RCW 48.05.200(1) establish service through the Washington Insurance Commissioner as the exclusive means of service on an authorized foreign or alien insurer in Washington. The court distinguished cases involving unauthorized insurers and concluded that a prior decision permitting alternative service had been abrogated by a statutory amendment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether RCW 4.28.080(7)(a), RCW 48.02.200, and RCW 48.05.200 establish service through the Washington Insurance Commissioner as the uniform and exclusive means of serving an authorized foreign or alien insurer in Washington.
- Whether the general service provisions for foreign corporations and Washington's long-arm statute provide an alternative method of serving an authorized foreign insurer.
Holdings
- RCW 4.28.080(7)(a) and RCW 48.05.200(1) establish service through the Washington Insurance Commissioner as the exclusive means of service on an authorized foreign or alien insurer in Washington.
- The general service provisions applicable to foreign corporations and the long-arm statute do not provide an alternative method of serving an authorized foreign insurer when the specific insurance-service statute applies.
- Kiblen v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. was abrogated by the legislature's 2011 amendment replacing "shall" with "must" in RCW 48.05.200.
Key quotations
“The answer to the certified question is yes—RCW 4.28.080(7)(a) provides the exclusive means of service on authorized foreign insurers.” (at 1)
“Service of legal process against the insurer can be had only by service upon the commissioner” (at 5)
“Applying the general-specific rule, we use the statute governing service of process that applies only to the commencement of actions against authorized foreign insurers because it is more specific than the statute that applies broadly to service on foreign corporations.” (at 7)
Factual background
A snowstorm caused the roof of a commercial building in Washington to collapse, resulting in claims by the building owner and tenant against their respective insurers. Ohio Security alleged that it paid its insured's loss and that AXIS had an equitable obligation to reimburse it. Ohio Security served AXIS at its Chicago office instead of serving the Washington Insurance Commissioner, and service through the Commissioner occurred only after the limitations period had expired.
Procedural history
Ohio Security sued AXIS in Pierce County Superior Court over an insurance coverage dispute but served AXIS at its Chicago office rather than through the Washington Insurance Commissioner. Ohio Security later served the Commissioner after AXIS moved to dismiss, but the statute of limitations had expired. AXIS removed the action to federal court, and the federal district court certified the service-of-process question to the Washington Supreme Court.
Remand instructions
The court answered the certified question yes and left the separate issue whether defective service could be excused for the district court to resolve.