This opinion will be unpublished and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.
2

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

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. 

D E C I S I O N

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.
3

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 
4

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.