Progressive Direct Ins. Co. v. Williams
2022 Ohio 887
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background:
- Multi-vehicle collision on April 18, 2018; Lindsay's vehicle collided with Williams’s vehicle.
- Progressive Direct Insurance Co. and William L. Lindsay sued Williams for negligence on July 22, 2020 seeking $109,585.74; Williams did not answer.
- Plaintiffs attempted service by certified mail (sent July 24, 2020); return receipt filed July 31, 2020 was signed "C19." The clerk later flagged service as "unsuccessful" because of the "C19" marking.
- Trial court granted default judgment December 14, 2020. Williams moved July 12, 2021 to vacate the default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction, filed a sworn affidavit denying receipt of process, and requested a hearing; the trial court denied the motion without a hearing on July 14, 2021.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion by denying a hearing because the certified-mail receipt marked "C19" together with Williams’s affidavit warranted a hearing to determine whether valid service occurred amid COVID-19 USPS signature practices and related administrative orders.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether certified-mail return receipt signed "C19" constituted valid service under Civ.R. 4.1 amid COVID-19 signature changes | Service was properly effected by certified mail; the return receipt evidences delivery | "C19" is not a proper recipient signature; Williams swore he did not receive the complaint | The record (C19 receipt + affidavit) required a hearing; trial court erred in concluding service was proper without one |
| Whether a sworn affidavit denying receipt rebuts presumption of valid service and requires a hearing | Presumption of valid service arises from compliance with Civil Rules; clerk and court orders can cure signature irregularities | Sworn affidavit of non-receipt rebuts presumption and, with irregular return receipt, merits a hearing | Court held the affidavit plus the unusual receipt sufficiently rebutted the presumption to warrant a hearing |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying motion to vacate without a hearing | No hearing was necessary because the record showed valid service | A hearing was necessary to resolve factual dispute about receipt/signature | Court found denial without hearing was an abuse of discretion and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryhew v. Yova, 11 Ohio St.3d 154 (Ohio 1984) (a court must have proper service to render personal judgment)
- State ex rel. Ballard v. O'Donnell, 50 Ohio St.3d 182 (Ohio 1990) (judgment without proper service is void)
- Lincoln Tavern, Inc. v. Snader, 165 Ohio St. 61 (Ohio 1956) (service or appearance required for personal jurisdiction)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
- Potter v. Troy, 78 Ohio App.3d 372 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992) (presumption of proper service when Civil Rules are followed)
- State ex rel. Doe v. Capper, 132 Ohio St.3d 365 (Ohio 2012) (personal jurisdiction principles)
- In re Tolling of Time Requirements Imposed by Rules Promulgated by the Supreme Court & Use of Technology, 158 Ohio St.3d 1447 (Ohio 2020) (administrative action allowing courts to waive in-person service requirements)