Mailman’s notation on certified mail was not sufficient for service of process.

A mailman’s notation on a certified letter sent by the Secretary of State did not constitute proper service of process in a car accident case.

In Lowe v. Harvey, No. E2024-01588-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 27, 2025), the plaintiff and defendant were in a car accident, and the defendant lived in Indiana. The plaintiff attempted to serve the defendant under the Tennessee statutes addressing service of an out-of-state motorist, Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-2-203 through -207. Pursuant to the statute, the plaintiff had a summons issued to the Tennessee Secretary of State, who then sent a summons to the defendant by registered mail. At the time of service in 2021, however, the postal service had “suspended its signature requirement for certified mail and registered return receipt mail because of Covid-19.” The letter to the defendant was returned with a marking made by the mail carrier in the signature space.

After the plaintiff filed suit, the defendant moved to dismiss based on insufficient service of process. The trial court agreed that the defendant had not been served and dismissed the case, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

The plaintiff argued that “the Tennessee Secretary of State was Defendant’s agent, and that Plaintiff sufficiently apprised Defendant of the lawsuit against him by serving the Secretary of State.” The Court rejected this argument, explaining that previous caselaw “reflects that service upon the Secretary of State alone is not enough to constitute sufficient service of process to a non-resident motorist.” The Court noted that the legislature “intended that for service of process to be effective, the non-resident motorist or a person authorized under statute must be personally served…”

In this case, neither party asserted that the defendant signed the return mail receipt. Because there was no evidence that “Defendant, or a person authorized to accept service on Defendant’s behalf, received delivery of service of process,” dismissal was affirmed.

This opinion was released 1.5 months after oral arguments in this case.