in this case Ameri-trade is saved from the jurisdiction of the district court by a much more mundane problem: the plaintiff simply failed to serve the corporation properly. For that reason, and for that reason alone, the judgment of the district court is Affirmed. 1 . D.C.Code § 13-334(a) provides: In an action against a foreign corporation doing business in the District, process may be served on the agent of the corporation or person conducting its business, or, where he is absent and can not be found, by leav- ing a copy at the principal place of business a finding of specific jurisdiction on the mailing of an insurance contract into the state and the mailing of premiums from the state); Travelers Health Ass’n v. Virginia, 339 U.S. 643, 648, 70 S.Ct. 927, 94 L.Ed. 1154 (1950) (<HOLDING>); Neogen Corp. v. Neo Gen Screening, Inc., 282
holding that if an insurance company is as a matter of state law liable to a plaintiff in the personal injury action subsequent discharge of the assured in bankruptcy does not alter the obligation of the insurance company and further finding that it is the policy of the law to discharge the bankrupt but not to release from liabilities those who are liable with him holding that a sovereign had waived its immunity where it was party to a consulting contract with a choiceoflaw provision that explicitly stated in the event of any controversy this agreement shall be construed and interpreted according to the laws of the state of virginia in the united states holding that virginia statute prohibiting insurance companies from unreasonably discriminating in establishing ppos is covered by erisas preemption provision because it restricts the ability of an insurance company to limit the choice of providers that otherwise would confine the participants of an employee benefit plan to those preferred by the insurer holding that an insurance company that does not deliver a policy to a certificate holder is estopped from asserting exclusions contained in the policy but not revealed in the certificate holding that an omaha mailorder company with no physical presence in virginia was subject to virginia regulation because it did not engage in mere isolated or shortlived transactions its insurance certificates systematically and  widely delivered in virginia  create continuing obligations between the association and each of the many certificate holders in the state