Delaware Code

8 Del. C. § 382 (2026)

Service of process on nonqualifying foreign corporations [Effective Aug. 1, 2026]

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section DE-DELCdelcode.delaware.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Any foreign corporation which shall transact business in this State without having qualified to do business under § 371 of this title shall be deemed to have thereby appointed and constituted the Secretary of State of this State its agent for the acceptance of legal process in any civil action, suit or proceeding against it in any state or federal court in this State arising or growing out of any business transacted by it within this State. If any foreign corporation consents in writing to be subject to the jurisdiction of any state or federal court in this State for any civil action, suit or proceeding against it arising or growing out of any business or matter, and if the agreement or instrument setting forth such consent does not otherwise provide a manner of service of legal process in any such civil action, suit or proceeding against it, such foreign corporation shall be deemed to have thereby appointed and constituted the Secretary of State of this State its agent for the acceptance of legal process in any such civil action, suit or proceeding against it. The transaction of business in this State by such corporation and/or such consent by such corporation to the jurisdiction of any state or federal court in this State without provision for a manner of service of legal process shall be a signification of the agreement of such corporation that any process served upon the Secretary of State when so served shall be of the same legal force and validity as if served upon an authorized officer or agent personally within this State. Process may be served upon the Secretary of State under this subsection by means of electronic transmission but only as prescribed by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is authorized to issue such rules and regulations with respect to such service as the Secretary of State deems necessary or appropriate.

(b) Section 373 of this title shall not apply in determining whether any foreign corporation is transacting business in this State within the meaning of this section; and “the transaction of business” or “business transacted in this State,” by any such foreign corporation, whenever those words are used in this section, shall mean the course or practice of carrying on any business activities in this State, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the solicitation of business or orders in this State. This section shall not apply to any insurance company doing business in this State.

(c) In the event of service upon the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary of State shall forthwith notify the corporation thereof by letter, directed to the corporation at the address furnished to the Secretary of State by the plaintiff in such action, suit or proceeding. Such letter shall be sent by a mail or courier service that includes a record of mailing or deposit with the courier and a record of delivery evidenced by the signature of the recipient. Such letter shall enclose a copy of the process and any other papers served upon the Secretary of State. It shall be the duty of the plaintiff in the event of such service to serve process and any other papers in duplicate, to notify the Secretary of State that service is being made pursuant to this subsection, and to pay the Secretary of State a fee as prescribed under § 391(a)(29) of this title for the use of the State, which sum shall be taxed as a part of the costs in the proceeding if the plaintiff shall prevail therein. The Secretary of State shall maintain an alphabetical record of any such process setting forth the name of the plaintiff and defendant, the title, docket number and nature of the proceeding in which process has been served upon the Secretary of State, the fact that service has been effected pursuant to this subsection, the return date thereof, and the day and hour when the service was made. The Secretary of State shall not be required to retain such information for a period longer than 5 years from receipt of the service of process.

8 Del. C. 1953, § 382; 56 Del. Laws, c. 50; 64 Del. Laws, c. 112, § 63; 67 Del. Laws, c. 190, § 10; 71 Del. Laws, c. 339, § 86; 77 Del. Laws, c. 290, §§ 33, 34; 79 Del. Laws, c. 72, § 15; 79 Del. Laws, c. 122, § 9; 85 Del. Laws, c. 273, § 36;

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 22 cases, 1970–1979 · leading case: Harry David Zutz Ins. Inc. v. H. M. S. Assocs., Ltd., 360 A.2d 160 (Del. Super. Ct. 1976).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Harry David Zutz Ins. Inc. v. H. M. S. Assocs., Ltd., 360 A.2d 160 (Del. Super. Ct. 1976). · cites it 6× “Properties was served by service upon the Delaware Secretary of State, pursuant to 8 Del.C. § 382, the Delaware “long arm” statute.”

Fehl v. S. W. C. Corp., 433 F. Supp. 939 (D. Del. 1977). · cites it 2× “(“McGuire”), one of three corporate defendants in this diversity personal injury action, has brought a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on the ground that substituted service of process under 8 Del.C. § 382 was improper and ineffective.”

Scott Paper Co. v. Scott's Liquid Gold, Inc., 374 F. Supp. 184 (D. Del. 1974). · cites it 3× “Service of the complaint and ' summons was effected pursuant to Rule 4(d)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and a Delaware long arm statute, 8 Del.C. § 382. I consider here three motions made by the defendant: (1) that the suit be dismissed for lack of personal…”

Lee v. Ohio Cas. Ins., 445 F. Supp. 189 (D. Del. 1978). · cites it 2× “§ 6-102 (1974); 8 Del.C. § 382. 17 Since Rule 4(f) does not affect the need for subject matter jurisdiction, 18 the question remains whether Bartlett could be impleaded in this diversity case without an independent grounds for jurisdiction.”

Gen. Foods Corp. v. Haines & Co., Inc., 458 F. Supp. 1167 (D. Del. 1978). · cites it 4× “Service was purportedly made upon Haines by serving the Secretary of State under 8 Del.C. § 382, which authorizes service upon non-qualified foreign corporations under limited circumstances.”

Capshaw v. Smith Estates, Inc., 69 F.R.D. 598 (D. Del. 1976). · cites it 5× “is not, and was never, licensed to do business in Delaware, and thus, 8 Del.C. § 382 establishes the criteria for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over it by the Delaware courts and this court in this case.”

Gentry v. Wilmington Trust Co., 321 F. Supp. 1379 (D. Del. 1970). · cites it 3× “Werner asserts as an affirmative defense that service of process on it was not proper under the Delaware long arm statute, 8 Del.C. § 382. On the day set for trial plaintiffs settled their claims against Spring Lock, Approved Ladder, and Wilmington Trust and executed a joint…”

Athletes Foot of Delaware, Inc. v. Ralph Libonati Co., 445 F. Supp. 35 (D. Del. 1977). “Furthermore, since the quantum of business which must be transacted by a corporation in a district to make it possible to establish venue of an action under the antitrust laws is less than the “doing business” necessary to sustain service of process in other cases, the…”

Eastman Kodak Co. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 392 F. Supp. 1152 (D. Del. 1975). · cites it 2× “This action was commenced by service of process on the Delaware Assistant Secretary of State in purported compliance with the Delaware long-arm statute, 8 Del.Code § 382. Defendant moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for lack of personal…”

Harmon Ex Rel. Harmon v. Eudaily, 407 A.2d 232 (Del. Super. Ct. 1979). “A liberal definition has been given to 8 Del.C. § 382, the corporate Long-Arm Statute.”

Scott Paper Co. v. Scott's Liquid Gold, Inc., 439 F. Supp. 1022 (D. Del. 1977). “Defendant has challenged this Court’s in personam jurisdiction over it under the substituted service provisions of 8 Del.C. § 382. I rejected defendant’s contentions in this respect in an earlier, pre-trial Opinion, 1 and defendant has stipulated that, while it continues to…”

La Chemise Lacoste v. Gen. Mills, Inc., 53 F.R.D. 596 (D. Del. 1971). “Service was purportedly made upon Izod under 8 Del.C. § 382. That long-arm statute provides that a foreign corporation which “transacts business” in this State shall be deemed to have appointed the Secretary of State as its agent to accept “legal process in any civil action,…”

Show all 22 citing cases →

— 8 Del. C. § 382(a) — 2 cases

Delaware Lead Constr. Co. v. Young Indus., Inc. (1957), 360 F. Supp. 1244 (D. Del. 1973).

A. A. R. Realty Corp. v. United States Fire Ins., 335 A.2d 271 (Del. Super. Ct. 1975).

— 8 Del. C. § 382(b) — 1 case

Gentry v. Wilmington Trust Co., 321 F. Supp. 1379 (D. Del. 1970). “Werner asserts as an affirmative defense that service of process on it was not proper under the Delaware long arm statute, 8 Del.C. § 382. On the day set for trial plaintiffs settled their claims against Spring Lock, Approved Ladder, and Wilmington Trust and executed a joint…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.