WWW.DISSERTATION.XLIBX.INFO
FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Dissertations, online materials
 
<< HOME
CONTACTS



Pages:   || 2 |

«E. Curtis Roeder, Roeder Smith Jadin, PLLC, Bloomington, Minnesota, for respondents. Randall E. Gottschalk, Gottschalk Law, PLLC, Saint Louis Park, ...»

-- [ Page 1 ] --

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN SUPREME COURT

A13-1302

Court of Appeals Anderson, J.

Robert Meeker, et al.,

Respondents,

vs. Filed: April 8, 2015

Office of Appellate Courts

IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company,

Appellant.

________________________

E. Curtis Roeder, Roeder Smith Jadin, PLLC, Bloomington, Minnesota, for respondents.

Randall E. Gottschalk, Gottschalk Law, PLLC, Saint Louis Park, Minnesota, for appellant.

SYLLABUS An action is commenced under Minn. Stat. § 45.028, subd. 2 (2014), when a plaintiff makes substituted service on the Commissioner of Commerce by either sending a copy of the process by certified mail to, or leaving a copy of the process at, the Commissioner’s office. To preserve the effectiveness of the service, a plaintiff must fulfill the other statutory requirements, including filing an affidavit of compliance in the district court, before the return day of the process.

Affirmed.

OPINION ANDERSON, Justice.

We have before us a question of statutory interpretation in which the sole issue is whether substituted service of process under Minn. Stat. § 45.028, subd. 2 (2014), is effective when a plaintiff makes service before the limitations period in an insurance policy has expired, but then files the affidavit of compliance after the period has expired.

Respondents Robert and Jacqueline Meeker brought an action against appellant IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company after the insurer denied their claim for property damage. It is undisputed that the Meekers served IDS, but the district court dismissed the action as untimely because the Meekers filed the affidavit of compliance after the policy’s 2-year limitations period had expired. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that filing the affidavit of compliance before the expiration of the limitations period was not required for effective substitute service. Because the plain language of section 45.028, subdivision 2, requires only that process be served on the Commissioner of Commerce to commence an action, we affirm the court of appeals.

I.

The Meekers held property insurance through IDS, and filed a claim with the insurance carrier in July 2010, alleging damage to their home as a result of a June 17, 2010, storm. IDS denied the claim in January 2011 for failure to provide appropriate documentation, and denied the claim for a second time in October 2011. The IDS insurance policy stated that any lawsuit challenging a denial of a claim “must be brought within two years after the date of loss or damage occurs.” Because IDS is a nonresident insurance company that conducts business in Minnesota, the Meekers were authorized to commence an action against IDS under the substituted-service statute, Minn. Stat.

§ 45.028, subd. 2, which allows the Commissioner of Commerce to accept service of process for foreign companies. Minn. Stat. § 60A.19, subds. 3-4 (2014). Section 45.028, subdivision 2, provides that service of process may be made by either mailing or leaving a copy of the process with the Commissioner, and is not effective unless the plaintiff sends notice of the service and a copy of the process to the defendant and files an affidavit of compliance with the court on or before “the return day of the process.” On June 13, 2012, 4 days before the expiration of the limitations period in the insurance policy, the Meekers sent copies of the summons and complaint by certified mail to both the Commissioner of Commerce and IDS. On June 28, the Meekers’ attorney signed an affidavit of compliance attesting to service of the complaint by certified mail, and, on June 29, filed the affidavit in the district court.

IDS moved for summary judgment in March 2013, claiming that the suit was untimely because the Meekers did not file their affidavit of compliance until after the 2year limitations period in the insurance policy had ended. The district court granted summary judgment to IDS, concluding that service of process under Minn. Stat. § 45.028, subd. 2, is not effective until all of the requirements of the statute are satisfied, including filing the affidavit of compliance with the district court. It is undisputed that the affidavit was filed outside of the 2-year limitations period.

The court of appeals reversed and remanded, holding that under the plain language of the statute the affidavit of compliance may be filed after a limitations period has expired, so long as it is filed on or before the return day of process. Meeker v. IDS Prop.

Cas. Ins. Co., 846 N.W.2d 468, 472 (Minn. App. 2014). We granted IDS’s petition for review to decide whether the Meekers’ suit was untimely based on their failure to file the affidavit of compliance before the expiration of the contractual limitations period.

–  –  –

Whether the Meekers’ service of process under Minn. Stat. § 45.028, subd. 2, was effective to commence their suit against IDS is a question of law that we review de novo.

Shamrock Dev., Inc. v. Smith, 754 N.W.2d 377, 382 (Minn. 2008). And specifically, the issue of whether, under the plain language of the statute, a plaintiff must file an affidavit of compliance within the contractual limitations period in order to obtain effective service of process presents a question of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. See City of Moorhead v. Red River Valley Coop. Power Ass’n, 830 N.W.2d 32, 36 (Minn.





2013). The text of the substituted-service statute provides:

Service of process under this section may be made by leaving a copy of the process in the office of the commissioner, or by sending a copy of the

process to the commissioner by certified mail, and is not effective unless:

(1) the plaintiff, who may be the commissioner in an action or proceeding instituted by the commissioner, sends notice of the service and a copy of the process by certified mail to the defendant or respondent at the last known address; and (2) the plaintiff’s affidavit of compliance is filed in the action or proceeding on or before the return day of the process, if any, or within further time as the court allows.

Minn. Stat. § 45.028, subd. 2 (emphasis added). If the Legislature’s intent is clear from the statute’s plain and unambiguous language, then we interpret the statute according to its plain meaning. State v. Rick, 835 N.W.2d 478, 482 (Minn. 2013). When construing a statute, we “give words and phrases their plain and ordinary meaning.” Premier Bank v.

Becker Dev., LLC, 785 N.W.2d 753, 759 (Minn. 2010) (citing Minn. Stat. § 645.08 (2008)).

There is no dispute that the Meekers performed the three acts necessary to effectuate service of process under the substituted-service statute, Minn. Stat. § 45.028, subd. 2, and there is also no dispute that they completed the last act after the limitations period in the policy had expired. That is, the Meekers sent copies of the process to the Commissioner of Commerce and to IDS before the expiration of the limitations period, but they did not file the affidavit of compliance until after the limitations period had expired. There also is no dispute, however, that the Meekers filed the affidavit before the return day of the process under the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure.1 IDS argues that the Meekers were required to complete all three acts before the limitations period expired. The Meekers contend that so long as the three statutory requirements are met, the affidavit of compliance need not be filed before the limitation period ends for the substituted service to be timely.

–  –  –

Typically, to determine if a civil action has been timely commenced, we look to Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 3.01, which generally provides that an action is commenced against each defendant “when the summons is served upon that defendant.” Section 45.028 does not define the “return day of the process,” but Minn. R. Civ.

P. 12.01 states that a defendant must serve an answer to a complaint within 20 days after service of the summons. The parties agree that the return day of process was 23 days after sending the summons and complaint to the Commissioner, because Minn. R. Civ.

P. 6.05 provides for an additional 3 days when, as here, the Meekers served the summons and complaint on the Commissioner by mail.

Minn. R. Civ. P. 3.01(a); see also Minn. R. Civ. P. 3.02 (providing that a copy of the complaint also must be served with the summons). We have said that “in the absence of a clear intention to the contrary... the ordinary rules of civil procedure apply [to a claim] unless clearly inconsistent with the statute.” In re Civil Commitment of Lonergan, 811 N.W.2d 635, 641 (Minn. 2012) (quoting Thunderbird Motel Corp. v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 289 Minn. 239, 242, 183 N.W.2d 569, 571 (1971)) (alterations in original).

Because Minn. Stat. § 45.028, subd. 2, does not address when an action is commenced, the ordinary rules of civil procedure apply; namely, an action is commenced when the summons and complaint are served. The statute is consistent with the Rules of Civil Procedure; the statute simply provides an alternative mechanism for how process may be served on certain out-of-state defendants.

We look to the language of the statute to determine whether the Meekers timely served IDS. The first clause of subdivision 2 states that “[s]ervice of process under this section may be made” by delivering or sending by certified mail a copy of the process to the Commissioner of Commerce. Minn. Stat. § 45.028, subd. 2 (emphasis added). As used in this provision, the common and approved usage of the word “made” is “[t]o cause to exist or happen.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1059 (5th ed. 2011). Thus, under the plain meaning of the first clause of subdivision 2, service of process exists—it has been made—at the point at which a plaintiff delivers or mails a copy of the process to the Commissioner of Commerce. This means that a plaintiff serving process under subdivision 2 commences litigation by providing the Commissioner of Commerce with a copy of the summons and complaint.

In addition, the very existence of the affidavit-of-compliance requirement assumes that an action had already been commenced by the service of process on the Commissioner. Specifically, the last clause of subdivision 2 states that a “plaintiff’s affidavit of compliance is filed in the action or proceeding on or before the return day of the process.” Minn. Stat. § 45.028, subd. 2 (emphasis added). If a lawsuit were not commenced through service of process, then there would be no “action or proceeding” in which to file the affidavit of compliance. In other words, the references to “is filed” and “the action or proceeding” in relation to the affidavit of compliance presuppose that an action has been commenced and that there is an existing case.

Therefore, as related to the limitations period governing a cause of action, the plain language of section 45.028, subdivision 2, provides that service of process is made, and therefore, an action is commenced, when a plaintiff sends a copy of the process to the Commissioner of Commerce by certified mail. Fulfillment of the other statutory requirements—sending notice to the defendant and filing the affidavit of compliance—is necessary only to preserve the effectiveness of the service. It is clear that service of process under section 45.028, subdivision 2, is no longer effective to commence an action if the affidavit of compliance is not filed by the return day of process, or such other period as the court allows. But, the requirement for effective service is separate from a limitations period. In other words, service of a complaint on the Commissioner is sufficient to commence an action for purposes of a limitations period, but a lawsuit can still be dismissed due to a plaintiff’s failure to file an affidavit of compliance before the return day of process.

Here, the Meekers commenced the lawsuit when they “made” service under Minn.

Stat. § 45.028, subd. 2, by sending, via certified mail, a copy of the complaint and summons to the Commissioner of Commerce 4 days before the contractual limitations period ended. Because the Meekers then sent a copy of the process to IDS and filed their affidavit before the return day of that process, they satisfied the statutory conditions for effective substitute service under Minn. Stat. § 45.028, subd. 2.2

–  –  –

Our conclusion, under the plain language of Minn. Stat. § 45.028, subd. 2, that the Meekers timely filed their action against IDS is consistent with Carlson v. Hennepin County, 479 N.W.2d 50 (Minn. 1992), in which we analyzed a similar, although not identical, service-of-process provision. Carlson considered the timeliness of the commencement of a civil action under Minn. R. Civ. P. 3.01(c), which provides that a civil action is commenced when “the summons is delivered to the sheriff in the county The court of appeals emphasized the Legislature’s use of the word “unless,” rather than “until,” in section 45.028, subdivision 2, in concluding that filing the affidavit of compliance before the expiration of the limitations period was not required for effective substitute service. See Meeker, 846 N.W.2d at 471. The plain language of the statute provides that service of process, once made, is “not effective unless” the plaintiff sends notice of the service and a copy of the process by certified mail to the defendant and files the affidavit of compliance on or before the return day of process. Minn. Stat. § 45.028, subd. 2. The district court concluded that the phrase “not effective unless” means that service is not effective until all three requirements of the statute are satisfied. The court of appeals determined that the word “unless” cannot be equated with the word “until,” the latter of which includes a temporal component. See Meeker, 846 N.W.2d at 471.

We need not resolve whether the court of appeals’ distinction between “unless” and “until” is dispositive, because the plain language of the statute makes clear that the Meekers commenced the litigation before the limitations period expired.



Pages:   || 2 |


Similar works:

«GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship 1997 Negotiation Ethics: How to Be Deceptive without Being Dishonest/How to Be Assertive without Being Offensive Charles B. Craver George Washington University Law School, ccraver@law.gwu.edu Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Charles B. Craver, Negotiation Ethics: How to Be Deceptive without Being Dishonest/How to Be Assertive without...»

«Case 3:12-cv-00244-CRS-JDM Document 20 Filed 04/12/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 288 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION ) CONWAY FOR SENATE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civ. No. 3:12-244 (CRS-JDM) ) v. ) ) REPLY FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) ) Defendant. ) ) DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Anthony Herman General Counsel Lisa J. Stevenson Deputy General Counsel –...»

«  TEXAS JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINIONS  1975 to Present  Editor's Note: The General Counsel of the Office of Court Administration has used footnotes designated by asterisks to refer to current code provisions. Other footnotes are those of the Committee. The Subject Index is composed by the General Counsel of OCA and is not an official index. GENERAL INDEX TO ETHICS OPINIONS Opinion No. ACCEPTANCE OF HOLIDAY GIFTS ADVERTISING court's web site displaying law firm advertisements judge’s spouse...»

«“How To Invest” series 101 Investment Decisions Guaranteed to Change Your Financial Future Paul A. Merriman with Richard Buck Published by Regalo LLC Copyright © 2012 Paul Merriman and Richard Buck Smashwords Edition ISBN: 9781301714025 All rights reserved. Except as permitted under the United States Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced, or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system without prior written permission...»

«With financial support of US Embassy Bratislava International Asylum Law Moot Court Competition 2016 RULES 1. General 1.1 Moot Court Overview The Moot Court is composed of two parts: (a) a written round (requiring the submission of two memoranda) and (b) a series of oral rounds (preliminary round; semi-final round; final round). The Moot Court is based on a fictional case described in the Case Materials distributed to each team in accordance with the Moot Court Timetable set out in Rule 1.2...»

«The Race Relations RESEARCH PAPER 00/27 8 MARCH 2000 Amendment Bill [HL] Bill 60 of 1999-2000 This Bill implements a principal recommendation of the Report of the Macpherson Inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence, that the Race Relations Act 1976 should apply to the police and the Government decision that it should be extended to all those areas of public authority activity not expressly included by the Act, and excluded by the Amin judgment. It is to be debated in the House of Commons on...»

«EnergyPlus™ Version 8.5 Documentation Application Guide for EMS U.S. Department of Energy March 31, 2016 COPYRIGHT (c) 1996-2016 THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AND THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA THROUGH THE ERNEST ORLANDO LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. NO PART OF THIS MATERIAL MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY MEANS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS OR THE ERNEST ORLANDO...»

«MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 21 2016, 8:50 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Cara Schaefer Wieneke Gregory F. Zoeller Special Assistant to the Attorney General of Indiana State Public...»

«General principles of EU law as a passe-partout key within the Institute of constitutional edifice of the European Law European Union: are the benefits worth the side effects? Working Papers Elena Gualco (University of Genoa) Paper: 05/2016 © The Author(s) Institute of European Law Birmingham Law School University of Birmingham Edgbaston Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom For more information on the IEL, see: birmingham.ac.uk/IEL For more information on this Working Paper Series, please...»

«Part 2 – Mortgage Table of Contents General Law Mortgage Mortgagor Mortgagee Capacity of Mortgagor Individual Corporation Trustee Tenant in Common Joint Tenant Capacity of Mortgagee Individual Corporation Trustee Personal Representative Joint Account and Tenants in Common Creation of Subsequent Mortgages 1, 2 Certificate of Title Consent of Prior Mortgagee 2 Equitable Mortgage 2 Mortgage of Lease of Freehold Land or Water Allocation 1, 3 Mortgage of a State Lease 1, 3 Mortgage of a Trustee...»

«Adventist Heritage Center From: Adventist Today atoday@atoday.org Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 12:57 PM To: Adventist Heritage Center Subject: The One Project Stokes Fears | Fired La Sierrans Abandon Lawsuit News & Opinion from Adventist Today February 7-13, 2015 NEWS The One Project: Christ-centered Unity and Unexplained Questions, Criticism: It is prophesied that young people will finish the work of proclaiming the gospelyet a curious phenomenon continues as The One Project stokes vocal...»

«Minorities, Cultural Rights and the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage Ana Filipa Vrdoljak∗ 1 Introduction The protection of intangible cultural heritage has often been regarded as the long neglected area of international cultural heritage law. Indeed, while international conventions for the protection of movable and immovable, tangible heritage have been operational for several decades, a specialist multilateral instrument covering intangible heritage was only finalised in 2003. Yet,...»





 
<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.dissertation.xlibx.info - Dissertations, online materials

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.