Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Phoenix of Hartford, Inc. v. Harmony Restaurants, Inc.
Citations: 560 P.2d 441; 114 Ariz. 257; 460 P.2d 441; 1977 Ariz. App. LEXIS 501Docket: 1 CA-CIV 3184
Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; January 13, 1977; Arizona; State Appellate Court
The Arizona Court of Appeals addressed the validity of service of process on a former agent of Phoenix of Hartford, Inc., a foreign insurance corporation. The trial court had refused to set aside a default judgment against the appellant, determining that service on the agent was proper under Rule 4(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the appellate court found that the trial court's reasoning contravened A.R.S. 20-221, which mandates that service of process on foreign insurance companies must be exclusively directed to the director of insurance. The appellate court emphasized that the statute distinguishes between service methods for foreign and domestic insurers, and service on an agent does not satisfy the statutory requirement for foreign insurers. The court ruled that the trial court’s decision effectively negated the explicit statutory provision, which it refused to do, thereby reversing the trial court's ruling. The appellate decision aligns with precedents from other jurisdictions that support the exclusivity of similar statutory service requirements. In State ex rel. Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Company of Hartford, Conn. v. Harris, the court reviewed a statute interpreted as requiring exclusive service of process on the state insurance agency, despite being more permissive than the relevant law in the case at hand. The court reversed and remanded the judgment, instructing the trial court to set aside the default judgment against Hartford Insurance. The statute A.R.S. 20-221 mandates that each authorized insurer appoint the director as its attorney for receiving legal process, with such appointment being irrevocable and binding on successors. For foreign insurers, service is exclusively on the director, while domestic insurers can be served on the director, the corporation, or an attorney-in-fact. The insurer must designate a person to whom process served on the director should be forwarded, with the option to change this designation. The trial court determined that Hartford Insurance was a foreign insurer based on the evidence presented, despite the appellee's claims. Additionally, the appellee's complaint indicated that Hartford was licensed to operate in the state, which aligns with the definitions applicable to foreign corporations under the Corporation Code.