413 P.3d 1028
Wash.2018Background
- Ohio Security paid losses for its insured (Grosso) after a 2012 roof collapse and sued AXIS (insurer of Reddy Ice) for equitable reimbursement.
- Ohio Security sued in Pierce County Superior Court but initially served AXIS at its Chicago office rather than the Washington Insurance Commissioner (Commissioner).
- AXIS moved to dismiss for improper service; Ohio Security then served the Commissioner only after the statute of limitations had run.
- AXIS removed the case to federal court and argued the improper service failed to toll the limitations period; the federal court certified a statutory-question to the Washington Supreme Court.
- The certified question: whether RCW 4.28.080(7)(a), RCW 48.02.200, and RCW 48.05.200 make service on the Insurance Commissioner the exclusive means of service for authorized foreign insurers in Washington.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Washington law makes service on the Insurance Commissioner the exclusive method for authorized foreign insurers | Ohio Security: Alternative statutes (RCW 4.28.080(10) + long-arm RCW 4.28.185) allow serving insurer’s out-of-state agent (e.g., Chicago office) | AXIS: RCW 48.05.200(1) mandates appointment of Commissioner and provides that service "can be had only" on Commissioner, so exclusive | Held: Yes—RCW 4.28.080(7)(a) and RCW 48.05.200(1) make service through the Commissioner the exclusive means for authorized foreign insurers |
Key Cases Cited
- Nitardy v. Snohomish County, 105 Wn.2d 133 (1986) (legislature may designate an official as exclusive agent for service; service on anyone else is insufficient)
- Nitro-Lift Techs., LLC v. Howard, 568 U.S. 17 (2012) (specific statute controls over a general statute when conflict exists)
- Flight Options, LLC v. Dep't of Revenue, 111 Wn.2d 487 (1988) (a more specific statute prevails over a general one in case of apparent conflict)