1. Is the court’s willingness to disregard labels and conclusory terms such as “general”

and “managing” agent consistent with the clear requirements of Rule 4(h)(1)(B)? Should the court have held that the claims adjuster could be regarded as a “managing agent” of the defendant? In determining whether the person served is “so integrated with the organization that he will know what to do with the papers,” courts consider whether the person served229is employed by defendant and whether actual notice was received, but actual notice will not inevitably cure a defect in service under this rule. See American Institute of Certified Public Accountants v. Affinity Card, Inc., 8 F. Supp. 2d 372 (S.D.N.Y.1998) (service on vice president of one corporation sharing office with defendant corporation insufficient to create personal jurisdiction despite fact that both corporations were owned by the same individual who had received actual notice).