In Hercules Concrete Pumping Service, Inc. v. Bencon Management & General Contracting Corp., 62 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. App.-Houston 1st Dist. 2001, pet. denied), the return of service stated that the citation and petition were served on "Hercules Concrete Pumping," but a default judgment was rendered against "Hercules Concrete Pumping Service, Inc." Hercules, 62 S.W.3d at 309-10.
The Court reversed the default judgment because the record did not affirmatively demonstrate that the entity named in the default judgment was served with process:
"…The language of the return . . . does not establish that the "Hercules Concrete Pumping" served was the defendant below, Hercules Concrete Pumping Service, Inc.
. . .
In this case, the word "Service," a portion of the entity's name, has been omitted from the return. It is common knowledge that related corporate entities often share a portion of the same name, but are, nonetheless, separate and distinct corporate entities. Thus, even though the return in this case shows service on "Hercules Concrete Pumping," it does not show service on "Hercules Concrete Pumping Service, Inc." It is entirely possible that there are several corporate entities whose name begins with the words "Hercules Concrete Pumping." Because of the incomplete name of the corporate entity served, we believe the return is insufficient…" (Id. at 310-11.)