In 1996, Sandra Jacobs Lawson and William Marzzaco were involved in a car accident in Philadelphia County. Lawson filed a complaint against Marzzaco two years later for her injuries. On four occasions in 1998 – March 31, April 1, April 4 and April 16 – Lawson attempted to serve Marzzaco at the address he provided for the police report at the time of the accident.

According to the opinion, Lawson was “definitively told” that Marzzaco no longer resided there; the new owner of the home stated that Marzzaco had sold the house approximately two years earlier and moved to a retirement community but left no forwarding address.

Lawson herself failed to appear at an arbitration hearing on Nov. 2, 1998. A default judgment was entered in Marzzaco’s favor. On Nov. 27, Lawson appealed the arbitration award.

That same month, Lawson tried to locate Marzzaco by making inquiries to the U.S. Postal Service and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Driver Licensing. Both reported Marzzaco lived at the same incorrect address listed on the police report.

In January 1999, Lawson hired an investigator to locate Marzzaco and then reinstated her complaint against him. Marzzaco filed preliminary objections to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Lawson failed to make a good faith effort to effectuate service.

The trial court agreed with Marzzaco and dismissed Lawson’s complaint with prejudice.

On appeal, Lawson claimed the trial court erred in dismissing her case. She cited Shackelford v. Chester County Hospital, PICS Case No. 97-0557 (Pa. Super. March 5, 1997) Cirillo, J. (24 pages), a 1997 Superior Court case holding that one “need only make an initial good faith attempt” in service of process.

No Good Faith

The Superior Court disagreed with Lawson that her conduct demonstrated a good faith attempt to serve process.

“Nothing in the record persuades this court that [Lawson] made good faith, reasonable efforts to serve [Marzzaco] in a timely manner,” the court said, citing its 1976 decision in Lamp v. Heyman, 366 A.2d 882 (Pa. 1976).

Under Lamp, belated service of process is acceptable when the defendant can’t be found, as long as “the plaintiff then refrains from a course of conduct which serves to stall in its tracks the legal machinery he has just set in motion.”

In waiting nine months to pick up where she had left off in her pursuit of Marzzaco, the court believed Lawson simply allowed that machinery to rust.

The court differentiated the failure to make a good effort to serve a defendant from deliberate acts in bad faith.

“While [Lawson's] inaction may not have been purposeful, bad faith efforts to retard service of process, [her] neglect to ascertain [Marzzaco's] correct address until nine months after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations are acts sufficient to bring the Lamp rule to bear,” the panel said.

“[Lawson's conduct] did not satisfy the requirement of good faith efforts to serve process under the Lamp rule.”

The court also distinguished Lawson’s case from the situation in Shackelford, in which the plaintiff had made “regular attempts at service … at the correct address where service was eventually effectuated.”

Here, the court noted, Lawson knew the address was incorrect, yet continued to attempt to serve process there.