In its recent non-precedential
decision in the case of Nicolas v.
Zolner, No. 1261 MDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Aug. 15, 2017 Moulton, Solano &
Musmanno, J.J.) (Mem. Op. by Musmanno, J.), the court provided its latest take
on the Lamp v. Heyman line of cases
pertaining to proper service of original process in a civil litigation
matter.
In this case, the court affirmed
the trial court’s granting of the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections where the
Plaintiff did not make any good faith effort to complete service of original
process until approximately 2 ½ years after the expiration of the statute of
limitations.
In so ruling, the appellate court
agreed with the trial court’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s arguments that the
Plaintiff’s attorney’s dealings with the Defendant’s liability carrier put the
Defendant on actual notice of the litigation.
The court found that this argument to be “without merit.” The court additionally noted that
communications between the Plaintiff and a Defendant’s carrier cannot serve as
a substitute for actual service of process under the Rules of Civil
Procedure.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.