In Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, the plaintiff served two out-of-state corporations by mailing the summons and complaint, addressed to each company, to the companies' offices, pursuant to section 415.40, which provides that "a summons may be served on a person outside this state . . . by sending a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served by first-class mail, postage prepaid, requiring a return receipt." No name of the person to be served on behalf of the corporation was on either envelope. The return receipts were signed and returned. (Dill, at p. 1432.) The question was whether this service substantially complied with the provisions of the statute. The court recognized that the statutory provisions regarding service of process should be liberally construed "'"'to effectuate service and uphold the jurisdiction of the court if actual notice has been received . . .'"'" (Dill, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1436-1437), and noted that a finding of substantial compliance could be made if it was shown that "despite the failure to address the mail to one of the persons to be served on behalf of the defendants, the summons was actually received by one of the persons to be served" (id., at p. 1437). But the plaintiff was unable to prove that the summons was actually received by any person authorized to be served. Therefore, the court concluded, there was no substantial compliance, and the service was ineffective. (Id., at p. 1439.)