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
Decided: MdY 6 - 7984
--
Filed: &- 1
: - 1J83
Mr. ~ustice
Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .
P l a i n t i f f s Edmund Beedie and Truck I n s u r a n c e Exchange
b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of Yellowstone
County t o r e c o v e r damages f o r i n j u r i e s s u s t a i n e d a s a r e s u l t
of d e f e n d a n t s ' a l l e g e d n e g l i g e n c e . The c o m p l a i n t w a s f i l e d
on October 1 5 , 1979, and b o t h p a r t i e s f i l e d motions f o r
summary judgment w i t h 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 C o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n s , g r a n t e d
summary judgment f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t s and d i s m i s s e d t h e p l a i n -
t i f f s ' action. P l a i n t i f f s a p p e a l from t h i s d i s m i s s a l .
P l a i n t i f f Edmund Beedie i s a n employee o f Goodan Conoco
S e r v i c e S t a t i o n l o c a t e d i n Lewistown, Montana. Beedie was
i n j u r e d on September 6, 1976, when h e w a s h i t by d e f e n d a n t
Martha S h e l l e y ' s motor v e h i c l e , d r i v e n by d e f e n d a n t John
S h e l l e y , a s h e w a s walking from t h e shop a r e a t o t h e g a s
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 r e c e i v e d head
and l e g i n j u r i e s and w a s u n a b l e t o r e t u r n t o work f o r o v e r
1 2 weeks.
B e e d i e ' s employer f i l e d a w o r k e r s ' compensation c l a i m
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 I n s u r -
a n c e Exchange made f i n a l payments t o Beedie on J u l y 1 7 ,
1978, and h a s a s s e r t e d a s u b r o g a t i o n c l a i m i n t h e amount of
$7,728.06. John S h e l l e y moved t o Medford, Oregon, i n J u n e
1978 and Martha S h e l l e y j o i n e d him t h e r e i n August 1978.
There w a s some q u e s t i o n r a i s e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
c o n c e r n i n g t h e r e a s o n s 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 d e f e n d a n t s ' l o c a t i o n . plaintiffs
c o n t e n d t h a t d e f e n d a n t s f l e d t h e s t a t e t o a v o i d s e r v i c e of
p r o c e s s f o r t h i s s u i t and t h a t t h e y w e r e unaware of d e f e n -
d a n t s ' whereabouts u n t i l September 28, 1979. They a r g u e
t h a t t h i s d i s a p p e a r a n c e from t h e s t a t e t o l l e d t h e s t a t u t e of
limitations.
D e f e n d a n t s , however, p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e i n t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t showing bona f i d e r e a s o n s f o r l e a v i n g t h e s t a t e and
a l s o t h a t a n a g e n t o f 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 a d d r e s s e s . Defendants a r g u e t h a t t h e y 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 r u n 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 f o u r i s s u e s on a p p e a l , t h i s
c a s e c a n b e d e c i d e d 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 C o u r t e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g 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 .
A p p e l l a n t s i n i t i a l l y c o n t e n d 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 d u r i n g p e r i o d s o f t i m e a f t e r t h e d a t e of
the accident. T h i s c o n t e n t i o n i s based on s e c t i o n 27-2-402,
MCA. Respondents, o n t h e o t h e r hand, a r g u e t h a t a l t h o u g h
t h e y have been n o n r e s i d e n t s and o u t s i d e Montana a t c e r t a i n
t i m e s s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e d a t e of t h e a c c i d e n t , t h e y have
always been a v a i l a b l e f o r s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s under Rule
4 D ( 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 w i t h i n t h r e e
y e a r s o f t h e commission of t h e t o r t . S e c t i o n 27-2-204, MCA.
S e c t i o n 27-2-402, MCA, p r o v i d e s :
" I f when t h e c a u s e o f a c t i o n a c c r u e s a g a i n s t a
p e r s o n h e i s o u t of t h e s t a t e , t h e a c t i o n may be
commenced w i t h i n t h e term h e r e i n 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 t h e c a u s e
of a c t i o n a c c r u e s h e d e p a r t s from t h e s t a t e , t h e
t i m e o f h i s a b s e n c e 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 4 D ( 3 ) , M.R.Civ.P., provides:
" P e r s o n a l 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 p e r s o n c a n n o t , w i t h due d i l i g e n c e ,
be made p e r s o n a l l y w i t h i n t h i s s t a t e , s e r v i c e
o f summons and c o m p l a i n t may be made by s e r v i c e
o u t s i d e t h i s s t a t e i n t h e manner p r o v i d e d f o r
s e r v i c e w i t h i n t h i s s t a t e , w i t h 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 w i t h i n
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 i s p e r -
mitted a s h e r e i n a f t e r provided, personal s e r v i c e
o f a summons and c o m p l a i n t upon t h e d e f e n d a n t o u t
o f t h e s t a t e s h a l l be e q u i v a l e n t t o and s h a l l
d i s p e n s e w i t h t h e p r o c e d u r e s and t h e p u b l i c a t i o n
and m a i l i n g p r o v i d e d f o r h e r e a f t e r i n 4 ( 5 ) ( c ) ,
4 ( 5 ) ( d ) and 4 ( 5 ) ( e ) o f 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 p e r s o n i 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
o f t h e c o u r t s o f t h i s s t a t e a s t o any c l a i m f o r
r e l i e f a r i s i n g from t h e d o i n g p e r s o n a l l y , t h r o u g h
a n employee, o r t h r o u g h an a g e n t , of any of t h e
following a c t s :
" ( b ) t h e commission of any a c t which r e s u l t s i n
a c c r u a l w i t h i n t h i s s t a t e of a t o r t a c t i o n ; "
When R u l e s 4 B (1) and 4D ( 3 ) are r e a d t o g e t h e r , i t 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 p r o c e s s .
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 S i x t e e n t h J . D . ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 162 Mont.
31, 508 P.2d 130. I n McGhee t h e p e t i t i o n e r r e q u e s t e d a w r i t
o f s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l s e e k i n g 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 r u n n i n g o f t h e s t a t u t e
of l i m i t a t i o n s . The case i n v o l v e d a wrongful d e a t h a c t i o n
a g a i n s t a r a n c h i n g 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
individually. The a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d on December 20, 1968,
w h i l e 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 h e
r e s i d e d i n Utah. The c o m p l a i n t was f i l e d on J a n u a r y 4 ,
1972, and R . W. McGhee w a s s e r v e d on May 30, 1972, i n Utah,
p u r s u a n t t o t h e long-arm s t a t u t e .
I n McGhee w e g r a n t e d p e t i t i o n e r ' s r e q u e s t f o r s u p e r -
v i s o r y c o n t r o l and h e l d t h a t where p l a i n t i f f c o u l d e f f e c -
t i v e l y s e r v e d e f e n d a n t o u t s i d e t h e s t a t e , a b s e n c e 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 o f l i m i t a t i o n s . W e stated:
"The p u r p o s e 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 p r e v e n t a d e f e n d a n t
from d e f e a t i n g a p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m 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
this rule. 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 o f p r o c e s s by some method, e v e n
though t h e d e f e n d a n t may b e a n o n r e s i d e n t o r ab-
s e n t from t h e s t a t e , t h e s t a t u t e c o n t i n u e s 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
w h i l e h e r e s i d e d i n Montana and u n d e r R u l e 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 o f t h e Montana c o u r t s . By b e i n g 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 r e s p o n d e n t 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.
S e e a l s o , S t a t e v. D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t
( 1 9 6 6 ) , 148 Mont. 22, 417 P.2d 109; Baker v . F e r g u s o n R e s e a r c h ,
Inc. (D. Mont. 1 9 7 4 ) , 6 1 F.R.D. 637. I n the i n s t a n t case,
t h e a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d o n September 8 , 1976. D e f e n d a n t 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 J u n e 1978 when h e moved
t o Medford, Oregon, f o l l o w e d s h o r t l y by h i s w i f e i n August
1978. The d e f e n d a n t s w e r e u n i n s u r e d a t t h e t i m e o f 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 I n s u r a n c e Exchange and J o h n by F a r m e r s
I n s u r a n c e Exchange, b o t h a f f i l i a t e d companies o f a p p e l l a n t
Truck I n s u r a n c e Exchange. E x h i b i t s produced i n t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t i n d i c a t e d t h a t a s o f e a r l y August 1979 Truck I n s u r a n c e
Exchange had knowledge o f t h e S h e l l e y s ' Oregon a d d r e s s .
T h i s a d d r e s s was l a t e r u t i l i z e d i n s e r v i n g r e s p o n d e n t s w i t h
t h e summons and c o m p l a i n t . The c o m p l a i n t h e r e was f i l e d
O c t o b e r 1 5 , 1979.
The d e l a y i n f i l i n g t h e c o m p l a i n t w a s a p p a r e n t l y c a u s e d
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 w h e t h e r 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 a n y judgment b e f o r e g o i n g
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 c o m p l a i n t b e f o r e t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s r a n and
served it within a reasonable t i m e t h e r e a f t e r . R u l e 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 o f Montana a t t h e
t i m e of t h e a c c i d e n t . Under R u l e 4 B (1) t h i s s u b j e c t e d them
t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e Montana c o u r t s . Because t h e y
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 c a p a b l e o f b e i n g s e r v e d
during t h e e n t i r e t i m e , t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s was n o t
tolled. S t a t e e x r e l . 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 d e f e n s e of s t a t u t e of
l i m i t a t i o n s i s not a v a i l a b l e a g a i n s t i t s subrogation claim.
W e disagree. Appellants' claim i s one of subrogation. It
i s d e r i v e d from t h a t o f t h e i n s u r e d a n d i s s u b j e c t t o t h e
same d e f e n s e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s a s
t h o u g h t h e a c t i o n w e r e s u e d upon by t h e i n s u r e d . Sunset-
S t e r n a u Food Co. v . Bonzi ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 60 C a l . 2 d 834, 36 C a l . R p t r .
741, 389 P.2d 1 3 3 ; May T r u c k i n g Co. v . I n t e r n a t i o n a l Har-
v e s t e r Co. ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 97 I d a h o 319, 543 P.2d i 1 5 9 . Therefore,
t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s began r u n n i n g a t t h e t i m e o f t h e
a c c i d e n t , S e p t e m b e r 8 , 1976.
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t a c t e d c o r r e c t l y i n g r a n t i n g r e s p o n -
d e n t s ' m o t i o n f o r summary judgment.
Af f i r m e d .
V concur:
7
e
%-444 %pt,&
Chief Justice