The record reveals that plaintiffs made an unsuccessful effort through domestic sources to obtain an address for defendant s insured in Japan, including through the enrollment office of the university he was attending and the Japanese Consulates in Denver and San Francisco. It is apparently conceded that no effort was made in Japan to locate the insured there and that he was not personally served. Plaintiffs then amended their complaint to state a quasi in rem cause of action against the insurance policy issued by defendant and sought to attach the policy pursuant to C.R.C.P. 102, asserting that it was property of the insured in the possession of defendant and thus subject to attachment under the provisions of that rule. The trial court granted the motion to attach the insurance policy. The insured did not appear or answer the complaint, and a default judgment was entered against him in the amount of the policy limits.
Defendant now appeals that judgment.
I. Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it entered a default judgment as to liability against its insured without obtaining personal jurisdiction over the insured. The parties do not contest that an insurance policy is nonexempt property subject to prejudgment attachment pursuant to C.R.C.P. 102. Defendant asserts, plaintiffs concede, and we agree, that Colorado law does not permit an injured party to bring a direct action against the alleged tortfeasor s insurance company. The parties also agree that defendant s insured was not personally served and that the matter was to proceed solely as a quasi in rem action against the insurance policy. Accordingly, we must first consider whether the substituted service employed here, publication in a Denver-area newspaper, comports with the applicable requirements of constitutional due process for a quasi in rem action.