Title: BEEDIE v SHELLEY

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 80-35 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 EDMUND W. BEEDIE and TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Plaintiffs and Appellants, -vs- JOHN SHELLEY and MARTHA SHELLEY, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: The District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In Yellowstone County, The Honorable Robert H. Wilson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Lewis E. Brueggemann, Billings, Montana For Respondents: Hibbs, Sweeney, Colberg, Jensen and Koessler, Billings, Montana Submitted on Briefs: March 21, 1980 M d Y 6 - 7 9 8 4 Decided: -- 1 : - 1J83 Filed: &- M r . ~ u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. P l a i n t i f f s Edmund Beedie and Truck Insurance Exchange brought t h i s a c t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of Yellowstone County t o recover damages f o r i n j u r i e s sustained a s a r e s u l t of defendants' a l l e g e d negligence. The complaint w a s f i l e d on October 15, 1979, and both p a r t i e s f i l e d motions f o r summary judgment with accompanying b r i e f s and a f f i d a v i t s . The D i s t r i c t Court held a hearing on t h e motions, granted summary judgment f o r t h e defendants and dismissed the plain- t i f f s ' a c t i o n . P l a i n t i f f s appeal from t h i s dismissal. P l a i n t i f f Edmund Beedie i s an employee of Goodan Conoco Service S t a t i o n located i n Lewistown, Montana. Beedie was i n j u r e d on September 6, 1976, when he w a s h i t by defendant Martha S h e l l e y ' s motor v e h i c l e , driven by defendant John Shelley, a s he w a s walking from t h e shop a r e a t o t h e gas pump i s l a n d of t h e s e r v i c e s t a t i o n . Beedie received head and l e g i n j u r i e s and w a s unable t o r e t u r n t o work f o r over 1 2 weeks. Beedie's employer f i l e d a workers' compensation claim which was s e t t l e d on J u l y 1 4 , 1978. P l a i n t i f f Truck Insur- ance Exchange made f i n a l payments t o Beedie on J u l y 17, 1978, and has a s s e r t e d a subrogation claim i n t h e amount of $7,728.06. John Shelley moved t o Medford, Oregon, i n June 1978 and Martha Shelley joined him t h e r e i n August 1978. There w a s some question r a i s e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court concerning t h e reasons f o r t h i s move and whether o r n o t p l a i n t i f f s were aware of defendants' l o c a t i o n . p l a i n t i f f s contend t h a t defendants f l e d the state t o avoid s e r v i c e of process f o r t h i s s u i t and t h a t they w e r e unaware of defen- d a n t s ' whereabouts u n t i l September 28, 1979. They argue t h a t t h i s disappearance from t h e s t a t e t o l l e d the s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s . Defendants, however, presented evidence i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court showing bona f i d e reasons f o r leaving t h e state and a l s o t h a t an agent of p l a i n t i f f - i n s u r e r was aware of t h e i r new addresses. Defendants argue t h a t they w e r e a t a l l t i m e s a v a i l a b l e t o s e r v i c e and t h e r e f o r e t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a - t i o n s had run by t h e t i m e t h e a c t i o n w a s f i l e d . Although a p p e l l a n t s r a i s e four i s s u e s on appeal, t h i s case can be decided on t h e s i n g l e i s s u e of whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n granting summary judgment based on t h e running of t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s . Appellants i n i t i a l l y contend t h a t t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i - t a t i o n s w a s t o l l e d because respondents w e r e o u t s i d e t h e S t a t e of Montana during periods of t i m e a f t e r the d a t e of t h e accident. This contention i s based on s e c t i o n 27-2-402, MCA. Respondents, on t h e o t h e r hand, argue t h a t although they have been nonresidents and o u t s i d e Montana a t c e r t a i n t i m e s subsequent t o t h e d a t e of t h e accident, they have always been a v a i l a b l e f o r s e r v i c e of process under Rule 4D(3), M.R.Civ.P. (Montana's long-arm s t a t u t e ) . I n Montana a t o r t a c t i o n must be commenced within t h r e e years of t h e commission of t h e t o r t . Section 27-2-204, MCA. Section 27-2-402, MCA, provides: " I f when t h e cause of a c t i o n accrues a g a i n s t a person he is o u t of t h e state, t h e a c t i o n may be commenced within t h e term herein l i m i t e d a f t e r h i s r e t u r n t o t h e s t a t e ; and i f a f t e r the cause of a c t i o n accrues he d e p a r t s from t h e s t a t e , t h e t i m e of h i s absence i s n o t p a r t of t h e t i m e l i m - i t e d f o r t h e commencment of t h e a c t i o n . " Rule 4D(3), M.R.Civ.P., provides: "Personal s e r v i c e o u t s i d e t h e s t a t e . Where ser- v i c e upon any person cannot, with due d i l i g e n c e , be made personally w i t h i n t h i s s t a t e , s e r v i c e of summons and complaint may be made by s e r v i c e o u t s i d e t h i s state i n t h e manner provided f o r s e r v i c e within t h i s state, with t h e same f o r c e and e f f e c t a s though s e r v i c e had been made within t h i s s t a t e . Where s e r v i c e by p u b l i c a t i o n is per- mitted a s h e r e i n a f t e r provided, personal s e r v i c e of a summons and complaint upon t h e defendant o u t of t h e state s h a l l be equivalent t o and s h a l l dispense with t h e procedures and t h e p u b l i c a t i o n and mailing provided f o r h e r e a f t e r i n 4 ( 5 ) ( c ) , 4 (5) (d) and 4 (5) (e) of t h i s r u l e . " Rule 4B (1) , M.R..Civ.P., provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : ". . . any person is s u b j e c t t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e c o u r t s of t h i s s t a t e as t o any claim f o r r e l i e f a r i s i n g from t h e doing personally, through an employee, o r through an agent, of any of t h e following a c t s : " (b) t h e commission of any act which r e s u l t s i n a c c r u a l within t h i s s t a t e of a t o r t a c t i o n ; " When Rules 4B (1) and 4D (3) are read together, it becomes r e a d i l y apparent t h a t respondents here w e r e a t a l l t i m e s s u b j e c t t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of Montana c o u r t s and w e r e t h e r e f o r e amenable t o s e r v i c e of process. This Court faced a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n i n S t a t e ex rel. McGhee v. D i s t r i c t C t . of Sixteenth J . D . (1973), 162 Mont. 31, 508 P.2d 130. I n McGhee t h e p e t i t i o n e r requested a w r i t of supervisory c o n t r o l seeking t o compel t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o g r a n t summary judgment based on t h e running of t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s . The case involved a wrongful death a c t i o n a g a i n s t a ranching pz.r t n e r s h i p c o l l e c t i v e l y and t h e p a r t n e r s i n d i v i d u a l l y . The accident occurred on December 20, 1968, while R. W. McGhee w a s p r e s e n t i n t h e s t a t e . H e continued t o r e s i d e i n t h e S t a t e u n t i l May 1971 and a f t e r t h a t d a t e he resided i n Utah. The complaint was f i l e d on January 4 , 1972, and R. W. McGhee w a s served on May 30, 1972, i n Utah, pursuant t o t h e long-arm s t a t u t e . I n McGhee w e granted p e t i t i o n e r ' s r e q u e s t f o r super- v i s o r y c o n t r o l and held t h a t where p l a i n t i f f could e f f e c - t i v e l y serve defendant o u t s i d e t h e state, absence from t h e s t a t e would n o t t o l l t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s . W e s t a t e d : "The purpose of s e c t i o n 93-2702, R.C.M. 1947 [now s e c t i o n 27-2-402, MCA], i s t o prevent a defendant from d e f e a t i n g a p l a i n t i f f ' s claim f o r r e l i e f by l e a v i n g t h e s t a t e o r by e s t a b l i s h i n g r e s i d e n c e i n another s t a t e . But, t h e r e i s an exception t o t h i s r u l e . I n c a s e s where t h e p l a i n t i f f may e f - f e c t s e r v i c e of process by some method, even though t h e defendant may be a nonresident o r ab- s e n t from t h e state, t h e s t a t u t e continues t o r u n during t h e absence o r nonresidency . . . "The a l i e g e d t o r t was committed by R. W. McGhee while he r e s i d e d i n Montana and under Rule 4 B ( 1 ) , M.R.Civ.P., t h i s s u b j e c t s him t o t h e j u r i s d i c - t i o n of t h e Montana c o u r t s . By being s u b j e c t t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of respondent c o u r t and cap- a b l e of being served during t h e e n t i r e t i m e , t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s w a s n o t t o l l e d . . ." 508 P.2d a t 131-32. See a l s o , S t a t e v. District Court of Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t (1966), 148 Mont. 22, 417 P.2d 109; Baker v. Ferguson Research, Inc. (D. Mont. 1974), 61 F.R.D. 637. I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e a c c i d e n t occurred on September 8, 1976. Defendant John S h e l l e y r e s i d e d i n t h i s s t a t e u n t i l June 1978 when he moved t o Medford, Oregon, followed s h o r t l y by h i s w i f e i n August 1978. The defendants w e r e uninsured a t t h e t i m e of t h e a c c i d e n t ; however, s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t , Martha was i n s u r e d by Mid-Century Insurance Exchange and John by Farmers Insurance Exchange, both a f f i l i a t e d companies of a p p e l l a n t Truck Insurance Exchange. E x h i b i t s produced i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n d i c a t e d t h a t as of e a r l y August 1979 Truck Insurance Exchange had knowledge of t h e S h e l l e y s ' Oregon address. T h i s address was later u t i l i z e d i n s e r v i n g respondents w i t h t h e summons and complaint. The complaint h e r e was f i l e d October 15, 1979. The d e l a y i n f i l i n g t h e complaint w a s a p p a r e n t l y caused by' a p p e l l a n t s ' d e s i r e t o a s c e r t a i n whether t h e S h e l l e y s had s u f f i c i e n t a s s e t s t o answer f o r any judgment before going ahead w i t h a l a w s u i t . This reason i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o t o l l t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s , a s a p p e l l a n t s could have f i l e d t h e complaint b e f o r e t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s r a n and served it w i t h i n a reasonable t i m e t h e r e a f t e r . Rule 3, M.R.Civ.P. The S h e l l e y s w e r e r e s i d e n t s of Montana a t t h e t i m e of t h e a c c i d e n t . Under Rule 4B (1) t h i s subjected them t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e Montana c o u r t s . Because they w e r e s u b j e c t t o o u r j u r i s d i c t i o n and capable of being served during t h e e n t i r e t i m e , t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s was n o t t o l l e d . S t a t e ex rel. McGhee v. D i s t r i c t C t . of S i x t e e n t h J . D . , supra. Appellants n e x t contend t h a t t h e defense of s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s i s n o t a v a i l a b l e a g a i n s t i t s subrogation claim. W e d i s a g r e e . Appellants' claim i s one of subrogation. It i s d e r i v e d from t h a t of t h e insured and i s s u b j e c t t o t h e same defenses, i n c l u d i n g t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s a s though t h e a c t i o n w e r e sued upon by t h e insured. Sunset- Sternau Food Co. v. Bonzi (1964), 60 Cal.2d 834, 36 Cal.Rptr. 741, 389 P.2d 133; May Trucking Co. v. I n t e r n a t i o n a l Har- v e s t e r Co. (1975), 97 Idaho 319, 543 P.2d i159. Therefore, t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s began running a t t h e t i m e of t h e a c c i d e n t , September 8, 1976. The D i s t r i c t Court a c t e d c o r r e c t l y i n g r a n t i n g respon- d e n t s ' motion f o r summary judgment. Af firmed. V 7 e concur: %-444 % p t , & Chief Justice