The Court noted that the plaintiff filed the complaint in June, 2009 but did not issue a summons until six months later in January, 2010. Thus, the plaintiff failed to timely serve Housewares with a copy of the summons and complaint under N.J. COURT R. 4:4-1, which provides that if a summons is not issued within 15 days from the date of the Track Assignment Notice, the action may be dismissed in accordance with R. 4:37-2(a).Thus, the critical issue before the Court was whether untimely service amounted to improper service such that the time for removal was not triggered under 28 U.S.C. §1446(b).

y to contact its insured, no access to the insured’s records, and no means of conferring with the missing insured regarding the development of an appropriate defense? Does the prudent insurer retain defense counsel and file an answer on behalf of the nonexistent/recalcitrant/missing defendant? Does the insurer move to seek a declaration of no coverage? And if so, how does the insurer serve the defendant insured? This is the complex world of substituted service on insurers. On the federal level, Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e) governs service generally and provides only that service can be effectuated by “following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made.” In New Jersey, when personal service cannot be effectuated, state court rules allow for substituted service on others so long as the proposed form of service is “provided by court order, consistent with due process of law.” See, N.J. Ct. R. 4:4-4(b)(3). Due process requirements were enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950). As held by the Supreme Court, the means of substituted service must be more likely to notify the party of the action [here the evasive or non-existent insured] than any of the other customary means of service. The New Jersey Supreme Court, in turn, set forth its own balancing test to determine whether substituted service comports with due process. The factors are: (1) the plaintiff’s need; (2) the public interest; (3) the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s efforts to inform the defendant and (4) the interests of the defendant. Feuchtbaum v Constantini, 59 N.J. 167, 178 (1971). Feuchtbaum held that in limited circumstances, a party may serve an insurer as a substitute for a party defendant because “the carrier’s interest in defeating plaintiff’s claims will coincide with defendant’s interest.” 59 N.J. at 178. Arguably, that’s not always the ca