Automated Summary
Key Facts
On February 26, 2018, Beatriz Houlihan and Adin Monroe were involved in a car accident. Houlihan filed a personal injury lawsuit on February 5, 2021, just within the three-year statute of limitations. Between February 15 and March 29, 2021, process servers attempted multiple times to serve Monroe at various addresses without success. Monroe's relative, Jodie Monroe, informed the process server he was in the U.S. Army and not residing in Washington. On April 1, 2021, Monroe's attorney, Tiffany Wilke, filed a notice of appearance but did not provide contact information. Houlihan's counsel attempted to contact Wilke to accept service but received no response. Houlihan eventually served Monroe via the secretary of state on May 24, 2021, under Washington's nonresident motorist act. The court dismissed the case with prejudice, ruling Houlihan failed to prove Monroe concealed himself to avoid service under RCW 4.16.180.
Issues
The court evaluated whether the three-year statute of limitations for personal injury (RCW 4.16.080) was tolled under RCW 4.16.180 due to the defendant's alleged concealment to avoid service. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's military relocation and refusal to provide contact information constituted willful concealment. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to present evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact regarding clandestine removal from a known address or willful evasion of service, affirming the dismissal for lack of timely service.
Holdings
The court affirmed the superior court's decision to dismiss Beatriz Houlihan's personal injury action against Adin Monroe, concluding that she failed to present evidence establishing a question of fact regarding Monroe's purposeful concealment under RCW 4.16.180. The statute of limitations was not tolled because Monroe's absence from the state due to military service was not clandestine or willful, and there was no evidence he orchestrated a 'conspiracy to avoid service' by influencing Jodie Monroe or Wilke to withhold his location.
Remedies
The superior court granted the motion to dismiss the personal injury action with prejudice, as the statute of limitations had not been tolled under RCW 4.16.180 due to lack of evidence of concealment.
Legal Principles
- Under RCW 4.16.180, concealment to avoid service must involve clandestine or secret removal from a known address and willful evasion. The court affirmed that mere absence does not toll the statute unless there is evidence of willful concealment, as per Martin v. Triol (121 Wn.2d 135, 147, 847 P.2d 471 (1993)).
- The plaintiff bears the burden of proof to establish that the statute of limitations was tolled, as held in Rivas v. Overlake Hosp. Med. Ctr. (164 Wn.2d 261, 267, 189 P.3d 753 (2008)). When facts are disputed, the fact finder must resolve them.
Precedent Name
- Mason v. Mason
- Rivas v. Overlake Hosp. Med. Ctr.
- Mihaila v. Troth
- Caouette v. Martinez
- Bethel v. Sturmer
- Martin v. Triol
- Rodriguez v. James-Jackson
- Discover Bank v. Bridges
Cited Statute
- Statute of Limitations—Commencement of Action
- Statute of Limitations—Concealment
- Nonresident Motorist Act
Judge Name
- WORSWICK, J.
- MAXA, J.
- CRUSER, A.C.J.
Passage Text
- the superior court did not err when concluded that the statute of limitations did not toll under RCW 4.16.180 and granted Monroe's motion to dismiss. Accordingly, we affirm.
- Concealment is the clandestine or secret removal from a known address and willful evasion of process.
- Because the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to Houlihan, does not establish a question of fact as to whether Monroe engaged in the clandestine or secret removal from a known address and willful evasion of process, the superior court properly determined that Houlihan failed to establish concealment.