The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently held that notifying defense counsel of a lawsuit filed against his clients does not constitute a good-faith effort at proper service when defense counsel rejects service on behalf of his clients.

In Trivitt v. Serfass, plaintiff was injured when his motorcycle was hit by defendant’s car.  The defendant’s insurer retained counsel to represent the defendant.  One day before the statute of limitations was set to expire, plaintiff’s counsel emailed defense counsel to inform him that a complaint was filed and requested that defense counsel accept service on his client’s behalf.  Defense counsel declined.  While plaintiff’s counsel intended to send a copy of the complaint to the defendant approximately two weeks later, the defendant never received a copy and plaintiff’s counsel ultimately admitted it was not likely mailed.  It was not until three months later that plaintiff’s counsel sent the complaint to the sheriff to be served.

Once finally served, the defendant moved to dismiss.  Plaintiff opposed arguing that the defense counsel and insurer had notice of the suit.  However, the court rejected the argument stating, “notice to an insurance company’s lawyer of the filing of original process is insufficient to toll the statute of limitations when there has been no good-faith effort to serve process on the actual defendants.”

While courts are hesitant to dismiss cases, statute of limitation and service issues are typically rules courts expect litigants to strictly adhere to.

Thanks to Colleen Hayes for her contribution to this post.