Nichole Cox v. Mid-Minnesota Mutual Insurance Company, A16-712

Homeowner's house burned on Jan 9, 2014; insurer denied her claim.
On Jan 11, 2016, homeowner faxed the summons and complaint to the county sheriffs in Benton and Lyon Counties (where insurers had principal places of business).
Sheriff’s offices subsequently effected personal service: Lyon County served North Star on Jan 14; Benton County served Mid‑Minnesota on Jan 19.
Insurers moved to dismiss for insufficiency of service, arguing the action was not properly commenced because the plaintiff transmitted pleadings to sheriffs by fax rather than by personal delivery.
District court denied the motion, ruling the fax to sheriffs plus later actual service within 60 days satisfied Minn. R. Civ. P. 3.01(c); appellants appealed.
Court of Appeals reversed, holding Rule 3.01(c) requires personal delivery of the summons and complaint to the sheriff (Singelman controlling), and fax transmission did not satisfy that requirement so the action was not properly commenced.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether service under Minn. R. Civ. P. 3.01(c) was effective when plaintiff faxed the summons and complaint to county sheriffs	Fax transmission that results in actual receipt by sheriff constitutes commencement under rule 3.01(c); actual receipt = personal service	Rule 3.01(c) requires personal delivery of the summons to the sheriff; fax is not personal delivery so service is ineffective	Court held faxing to sheriffs did not satisfy Rule 3.01(c); personal delivery to the sheriff is required and plaintiff failed to meet initial burden, so action was not properly commenced

Singelman v. St. Francis Med. Ctr., 777 N.W.2d 540 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010) (construing Minn. R. Civ. P. 3.01(c) to require personal delivery to the sheriff)
DeCook v. Olmsted Med. Ctr., Inc., 875 N.W.2d 263 (Minn. 2016) (plaintiff bears initial burden to produce evidence that service was effective; defendant bears ultimate persuasion burden)
Lundgren v. Green, 592 N.W.2d 888 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999) (service not effective when not made in manner authorized by law; strict conformity required)
Stonewall Ins. Co. v. Horak, 325 N.W.2d 134 (Minn. 1982) (actual notice may equal personal service for certain rules—distinguished from Rule 3.01(c) here)
Am. Family Ins. Grp. v. Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273 (Minn. 2000) (statutory and rule provisions must be read as a whole to avoid conflicting interpretations)