846 N.W.2d 468
Minn. Ct. App.2014Background
- Robert and Jacqueline Meeker claim storm damage to their home on June 17, 2010 and filed an insurance denial suit against IDS Property and Casualty Insurance Company.
- Policy required suit to be brought within two years of loss (deadline: June 17, 2012).
- Because IDS is a nonresident insurer doing business in Minnesota, service could be made on the Minnesota Commissioner of Commerce under Minn. Stat. § 45.028, subd. 2.
- On June 13, 2012 the Meekers sent the summons and complaint by certified mail to the Commissioner and to IDS; they filed an affidavit of compliance in district court on June 29, 2012.
- The district court granted summary judgment for IDS, holding service was ineffective because the affidavit of compliance was filed after the policy limitations period expired.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the statute’s plain language requires filing the affidavit on or before the return day of the process (which the Meekers met), not necessarily before the limitations expiration date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service under Minn. Stat. § 45.028, subd. 2 was ineffective because the plaintiff filed the affidavit of compliance after the insurance-policy limitations period expired | Meekers: Sending the summons and complaint to the Commissioner within the limitations period commenced the action; the affidavit need only be filed on or before the return day of process | IDS: Service is not effective until all statutory conditions are satisfied, so filing the affidavit after the limitations period means the action was not begun in time | Court: Reversed — service was effective because the summons and complaint were sent to the Commissioner within the limitations period and the affidavit was filed on or before the return day of process |
Key Cases Cited
- Mercer v. Andersen, 715 N.W.2d 114 (Minn. App. 2006) (service beyond limitations period cannot confer personal jurisdiction)
- 301 Clifton Place L.L.C. v. 301 Clifton Place Condo. Ass’n, 783 N.W.2d 551 (Minn. App. 2010) (review of service-of-process sufficiency is legal question)
- Brua v. Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass’n, 778 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. 2010) (statutory interpretation principles; plain-language rule)
- State v. Barrientos, 837 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. 2013) (de novo review of statutory construction)
- Carlson v. Hennepin Cnty., 479 N.W.2d 50 (Minn. 1992) (an action is commenced when the prescribed method of service is timely initiated even if defendant receives notice later)