In this case, the court found that a delay of at least eight (8) months to effectuate service did not demonstrate good faith on the part of the Plaintiff to complete service.
The court also rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that actual notice was provided to the Defendant because both the Defendant and the Defendant’s insurance company had received a copy of the Complaint in the mail. The Plaintiff also asserted that no prejudice was suffered by the Defendant in the delay.
According to the Opinion, the Defendant and his carrier both denied receiving a copy of the Complaint in the mail. Judge Sibum indicated that, even if such mailings did occur, they were not a valid substitute for actual service under the rules in any event.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may
click this LINK.
Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania
Law Weekly (May 2, 2017).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.