A-ONE DAHILL MOVING & STORAGE CO., INC., APPELLANT,
v.
THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A-One Dahill Moving & Storage Co. appealed a trial court order denying its motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that service on an "office manager" does not comply with Florida's strict statutory requirements for service on corporations.
Service on an "office manager" does not comply with § 48.081. The statute must be strictly construed and requires service on specific categories of individuals in a hierarchical order: the President, Vice President, or other head of the corporation; if unavailable, the cashier, treasurer, secretary, or general manager; and failing those, a director or any corporate officer or business agent. An office manager does not fit within these categories unless the person holding that position can prove they also hold the dual role of general manager or corporate officer, which was not established here.
[1] Service of process on a domestic corporation must strictly comply with the statutory requirements for serving designated corporate officers or agents.
[2] Service on an "office manager" does not satisfy the statutory requirement of service on the President, Vice President, "other head of the corporation," cashier, treasurer…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Section 48.081, Florida Statutes (1981), which governs service of process on corporations, must be strictly construed”
Establishes that the statute governing service on corporations requires strict construction and interpretation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA corporate summons was served on an employee of A-One Dahill Moving & Storage Co., with the parties disputing whether this person was the office mana…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Strict Construction Of Service Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
This non-final appeal has, as its genesis, a trial court order denying a motion to dismiss based on insufficient service of process. We reverse.
The instant corporate summons was served supposedly on the “office manager” of the domestic corporation which now appeals. Both parties spend time arguing about whether the served employee held himself out to be the office manager, was in fact the office manager, or was merely the bookkeeper. However, under the facts of this case we do not believe it matters.
Section 48.081, Florida Statutes (1981), which governs service of process on corporations, must be strictly construed Carlon, Inc. v. Lindy’s of Omni, Inc., 408 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). A reading of this statute directs that service be had upon the President, Vice President, or “other head of the corporation.” Lacking the presence of all of the aforesaid, service may be effected on the cashier, the treasurer, the secretary or the general manager. In the absence of all of the above, then a director may be served and failing a director, any corporate officer or business agent will suffice.
There is only one of the foregoing categories that an “office manager”1 might fit into under the facts presented here and that is “a general manager.” Yet common understanding and usage distinguish the two. Thus, while an office manager might double as a general manager, or a corporate officer, anyone occupying such a dual role would have the burden of establishing it. Not only was no such proof adduced here, but to the contrary, proof established that the general manager was in fact a different person altogether and he was physically present on the premises when the summons was served.
We, therefore, hold that the term “office manager” used in this particular summons, fails to comply with Section 48.-081. See Ludlum Enterprises, Inc. v. Outdoor Media, Inc., 250 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971).
This cause is not without its irritations. Undoubtedly, the corporation was put on notice of the suit and it is sad the facts demonstrate a game of hide-and-seek with the process server of the kind that increasingly clutters up the time of the courts. Nonetheless, there can be but one result here, because no matter what the reason, proper service was not obtained,
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DOWNEY and HURLEY, JJ., concur. . It is not even contended that a bookkeeper would qualify for service.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ludlum Enters., Inc. v. Outdoor Media, Inc., 250 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Thillman v. Thillman, 408 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Carlon, Inc. v. Lindy's OF Omni, Inc., 408 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)