BEEDIE v SHELLEY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 80-35 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 EDMUND W. BEEDIE and TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Plaintiffs and Appellants, -vsJOHN SHELLEY and MARTHA SHELLEY, Defendants and Respondents. The District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In Yellowstone County, The Honorable Robert H. Wilson, Judge presiding. Appeal from: Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Lewis E. Brueggemann, Billings, Montana For Respondents: Hibbs, Sweeney, Colberg, Jensen and Koessler, Billings, Montana Submitted on Briefs: Decided: Filed: &- 1 : - 1J83 March 21, 1980 MdY 6 - 7984 -- 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. i n j u r e d on September 6, 1976, when h e w a s h i t Beedie was 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 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 new a d d r e s s 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. MCA. 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, 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 27-2-402, S e c t i o n 27-2-204, 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 serv 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 MCA. 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 . 31, 508 P.2d 130. ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 162 Mont. 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 The case i n v o l v e d a wrongful d e a t h a c t i o n of l i m i t a t i o n s . 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. w h i l e R. W. The a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d on December 20, 1968, 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 abs 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 capa 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. Inc. (D. 22, 417 P.2d 109; Baker v . F e r g u s o n R e s e a r c h , 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, 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 M.R.Civ.P. 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 , tolled. J.D., 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 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 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 . S t e r n a u Food Co. v . Bonzi ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 60 C a l . 2 d Sunset- 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 Harv 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
