Panel advances bill to harmonize how businesses and out‑of‑state motorists are served legal papers

House Bill 1361, a measure to update Washington's service‑of‑process rules for business entities and nonresident motorists, received a staff briefing and testimony at the Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee hearing on Jan. 28.

The bill would revise how plaintiffs may serve a business that is registered with the state and change procedures for serving nonresident motorists through the Secretary of State. "If a legal claim is brought against a represented entity ... any service of process, notice, or demand may be made by service on an entity's registered agent," staff explained during the committee's presentation.

The committee heard that the existing statutory framework is inconsistent across two bodies of law. "RCW 23.95, enacted in 2015, and the civil procedure law under RCW 4.28 are inconsistent, and that has on occasion led to confusion," Scott Douglas, director of the Corporations and Charities Division at the Office of the Secretary of State, told the committee. Douglas said the older statute still requires service by publication in some cases, a method he called cumbersome and outdated.

Under the bill, service on a "represented entity" could be made on the entity's registered agent, by certified mail to the principal office, by delivery to a person in charge of a regular place of business, or by service upon the Secretary of State. Douglas described a separate set of changes for nonresident motorists that would require plaintiffs to provide the Secretary of State with a copy of the summons for each address to be served and would require the Secretary of State to mail copies to known addresses within eight business days.

Representative Hill, the bill sponsor, said the draft reorganizes a lengthy statute into discrete sections and aligns RCW 4.28 with RCW 23.95. "This bill is going to amend our RCW 4.28, to align with RCW 23.95," the sponsor told the committee. The sponsor also said the bill clarifies steps for pro se litigants as well as attorneys.

Committee members asked for practical examples; Douglas described cases where a company dissolved and the registered agent could not be located, forcing plaintiffs into costly publication. He said the Secretary of State's office currently tries to follow the more recent statute but confusion remains because both laws are technically in effect.

No formal amendment or vote was recorded at the Jan. 28 hearing. Committee staff said they will accept follow‑up questions and that the office of the secretary of state and sponsor will provide additional implementation details if requested.

Notes: key procedural changes mentioned in committee testimony include consolidating service methods on registered agents, enumerating mailing and notice steps for nonresident motorists (including an eight‑business‑day mailing requirement), and removing an older provision that mandated service by publication for certain corporations. The committee did not take a formal vote on HB 1361 during this session.