Ray Charles Bate and Deborah Sue Bate v. Greenwich Insurance Company
2015 Mo. LEXIS 93
| Mo. | 2015Background
- Greenwich Insurance Company sought to set aside a default judgment against it two years after entry for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Bates sued Greenwich for underinsured motorist coverage; Greenwich was served via the Director under Mo. Rev. Stat. §375.906.
- Director accepted service on Greenwich’s behalf, forwarded the petition and summons by first-class mail, and filed an affidavit of service.
- The trial court found no valid service of process and voided the default judgment; Bates appealed.
- The issue is whether service under section 375.906, per Rule 54.18, satisfied due process and conferred personal jurisdiction.
- The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed, holding service complied with §375.906 and Rules 54.18, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service complied with §375.906 and Rule 54.18. | Bates served under §375.906; Rule 54.18 permits statutory service. | Greenwich argues §375.906 was not followed or is inapplicable; Rule 54.15/54.20 supplement. | Service proper under §375.906; Rule 54.18 applies. |
| Whether Rules 54.15 and 54.20 supplement §375.906. | Rules are inapplicable when service is under §375.906 per Rule 54.18. | Rules 54.15/54.20 must be followed to prove service. | Rules 54.15/54.20 do not supplement §375.906; no additional requirement. |
| Whether §375.906 applies to the Bates’ claims given policy origin and beneficiaries. | §375.906 applies; the Director forwarded process as required. | Policy issued to employer; may not fall within §375.906 scope. | §375.906 applies; the Bates properly effected service. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Hendrix, 183 S.W.3d 582 (Mo. banc 2006) (jurisdictional questions on Rule 74.06(b) review; independent proceeding)
- Goins v. Goins, 406 S.W.3d 886 (Mo. banc 2013) (finality and void judgments narrowly construed)
- Strong v. American States Preferred Ins. Co., 66 S.W.3d 104 (Mo. App. 2001) (service of process standards and statutes interaction)
- Grooms v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co., 32 S.W.3d 618 (Mo. App. 2000) (distinguishable; proof of Director’s service was present)
- Maddox v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 356 S.W.3d 231 (Mo. App. 2011) (distinguishable; role of 54.15/54.20 when service on Director)
- Forsyth Fin. Grp., LLC v. Hayes, 351 S.W.3d 738 (Mo. App. 2011) (jurisdictional questions; de novo review of voidness)