Kiblen v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance

708 P.2d 1215, 42 Wash. App. 65
Court of Appeals of Washington·Decided October 29, 1985·No. No. 6342-9-III·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Munson, J.

—Dr. Kiblen appeals the dismissal of his claim against Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company for improper service of process. Dr. Kiblen served his summons and complaint against Mutual of Omaha at its home office in Omaha, Nebraska. The trial court held RCW 4.28-.080C7)1 provides the exclusive manner of service upon a foreign or alien insurer. Dr. Kiblen contends RCW 4.28.180 and RCW 4.28.185, when considered together,2 provide an [67]*67alternative method of service. See 2 L. Orland, Wash. Prac. Trial Practice § 28, at 42 n.10 (3d ed. 1972). We agree with Dr. Kiblen and reverse and remand for further proceedings before the trial court.

RCW 4.28.080(7) existed prior to the enactment of RCW 4.28.180 and .185. Thereunder, foreign insurance companies, in order to do business in this state, were required to accept service of process through the Insurance Commissioner. RCW 48.05.200. Thus, a plaintiff in this state would serve the Insurance Commissioner who was then required to effect the service upon the foreign insurer. RCW 48.05-.210.

The Legislature is presumed to be cognizant of its own enactments; when it enacted RCW 4.28.180 and .185, it included therein a provision for personal service out of the state upon a party "[c]ontracting to insure any person, property or risk located within this state at the time of contracting". RCW 4.28.185(l)(d). We believe the Legislature's failure to amend the word "shall" in RCW 4.28.080 and similar language in RCW 48.05.200 and .2103 indicates [68]*68at best a preference for service upon the Insurance Commissioner in order that he be apprised of an action against a foreign insurance company doing business in this state.

Mutual of Omaha has raised no issue challenging Dr. Kiblen's compliance with RCW 4.28.180 and .185. Its only contention is that RCW 4.28.080 provides the exclusive manner of service. Here, the trial court and the respondent interpret the intent of the Legislature too narrowly. See RCW 4.28.185(2), (6). Thus, service may be made upon a foreign or alien insurer either within the state through the service upon the Insurance Commissioner or directly upon the insurer by means of extraterritorial service.

The order of dismissal is reversed. The case is remanded for further proceedings.

Green, C.J., and McInturff, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Kiblen v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance, 708 P.2d 1215, 42 Wash. App. 65 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985).

708 P.2d 1215 (Kiblen v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ohio Sec. Ins. Co. v. AXIS Ins. Co.
413 P.3d 1028 (Washington Supreme Court, 2018)
Powell v. Sphere Drake Ins. PLC
988 P.2d 12 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1999)
Powell v. Sphere Drake Insurance P.L.C.
988 P.2d 12 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1999)