Katherine JoAnn Lange, Thomas James Putman v. State Farm Insurance ( 2014 )

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A14-0175
Katherine JoAnn Lange,
Appellant,
Thomas James Putman,
Appellant,
vs.
State Farm Insurance,
Respondent
Filed September 8, 2014
Affirmed
Worke, Judge
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CV-13-10836
Katherine JoAnn Lange, Minneapolis, Minnesota (pro se appellant)
Thomas Putman, Minneapolis, Minnesota (pro se appellant)
Scott G. Williams, C. Todd Koebele, Murnane Brandt, St. Paul, Minnesota (for
respondent)
Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Schellhas, Judge; and Harten,
Judge.*
*
Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
WORKE, Judge
Appellants challenge the dismissal of their action against respondent-insurer and
denial of their motion for default judgment, arguing that the district court erred in ruling
that their service of process on respondent was insufficient. We affirm.
DECISION
Appellants Katherine JoAnn Lange and Thomas James Putman attempted to
initiate a lawsuit against respondent State Farm Insurance by having a process server
personally serve a summons and complaint on respondent in Nebraska. After appellants
filed their complaint in Hennepin County, respondent moved for summary judgment,
claiming that appellants failed to properly serve respondent, and appellants moved for a
default judgment challenging respondent’s answer. The district court dismissed the
matter after concluding that service of process on respondent was insufficient and that
therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction.
To be effective, service of process “must accord strictly with statutory
requirements.” Lundgren v. Green, 592 N.W.2d 888, 890 (Minn. App. 1999) (quotation
omitted), review denied (Minn. July 28, 1999). Service of process in a manner not
specifically authorized is ineffective service. Id. A challenge to service of process poses
a jurisdictional question, which we review de novo. Shamrock Dev., Inc. v. Smith, 754
N.W.2d 377, 382 (Minn. 2008). We apply the facts that the district court found unless
they are clearly erroneous. Id. The district court has personal jurisdiction over civil
defendants only if the summons is properly served. Id.2
Appellants argue that Nebraska law should apply because “[s]uit was filed in
Nebraska, because according to the law; the Summons and Complaint had to be filed in
the State where [the] Policy/Contract was issued.” But appellants did not file their
lawsuit in Nebraska; they filed in Minnesota. Service of process is determined by the law
of the forum state. Bloom v. Am. Express Co., 222 Minn. 249, 257, 23 N.W.2d 570, 575
(1946). In Minnesota, where appellants filed their complaint, service is made on a
corporation “by delivering a copy to an officer or managing agent, or to any other agent
authorized expressly or impliedly or designated by statute to receive service of
summons.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.03(c).
Here, a professional process server in Nebraska personally handed the documents
to Margaret Minary, respondent’s employee who worked in the human-resources
department at respondent’s Lincoln, Nebraska office. Appellants argue that Minary was
the correct person to serve because she was the head of human resources, making her an
appointed representative to receive service.
The individual receiving process must be one who reasonably could be expected to
inform the corporation of the service. Tullis v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 570 N.W.2d 309,
311 (Minn. 1997). An individual is an agent for service of process when he or she has
the “power to exercise independent judgment and discretion to promote the business of
the corporation”; or his or her position is “of sufficient rank or character to make it
reasonably certain the corporation would be apprised of the service.” Id.There is no evidence that Minary, a human-resources employee, fit into either of
these categories. Nor have appellants provided any evidence that Minary was granted
3
implied authority to accept service of process on respondent’s behalf. See id. at 313
(stating that implied authority to act as an agent generally exists when the “character of
the agency is such as to render it fair, reasonable, and just to imply an authority on the
part of the agent to receive service”).
Because service of process was not properly perfected, the district court lacked
jurisdiction and dismissal was appropriate. Leek v. Am. Express Prop. Cas., 591 N.W.2d
507, 509 (Minn. App. 1999), review denied (Minn. Apr. 6, 1999). Because the district
court lacked jurisdiction, it was not required to address appellants’ motion for default
judgment.
Affirmed.
4