Following a granted interlocutory appeal, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company “State Farm” challenges the order of the State Court of Gwinnett County denying its motion for summary judgment in this automobile accident case. State Farm, the uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier for Coleen and Jamie Manders, contends it was entitled to summary judgment on two grounds: 1 the Manderses failed to timely perfect service of process on the defendant below, Carolyn Jordan, and 2 the Manderses’ policy of insurance was suspended on the date of the accident. Because the record shows that the Manderses failed to act diligently in perfecting service of process on Jordan, we reverse. 1. The record shows that the Manderses sued Jordan, an allegedly unisured or underinsured motorist, to recover damages for injuries they suffered when Jordan ran a stop sign and hit their car. The accident occurred on January 14, 2005. The Manderses filed their action on January 12, 2007, two days before the expiration of the statute of limitation, OCGA § 9-3-33. State Farm was served with a copy of the complaint. On February 15, after the statute of limitation had expired, State Farm filed an answer that raised specifically the defense of insufficient service of process on Jordan.1 Unable to locate Jordan and to perfect service personally, the Manderses moved for an order permitting service by publication on July 26, which the trial court granted two days later. On October 2, State Farm moved for summary judgment. On November 1, service by publication was completed.
“When the statute of limitation has expired and a defendant raises the issue of defective service, from that point forward a plaintiff must act with ‘the greatest possible diligence’ to ensure proper and timely service or risk dismissal of his or her case.” Barabont v. Villaneuva , 261 Ga. App. 839, 842 584 SE2d 74 2003, quoting Ingraham v. Marr , 246 Ga. App. 445, 447-448 2 540 SE2d 652 2000. Thus, when State Farm asserted the defense of insufficient service in its February 15 answer, the Manderses were thereafter required to exercise the greatest possible diligence in serving Jordan. Id. An affidavit submitted by plaintiffs’ counsel detailing his efforts to accomplish service shows that he fell far short of this exacting standard.
