Glen Edin of Edinburgh Association, Appellant,

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A21-0761

Glen Edin of Edinburgh Association,
Appellant,

vs.

Hiscox Insurance Company,
Respondent.

Filed April 4, 2022
Reversed and remanded
Bryan, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CV-19-17685

Alexander M. Jadin, Timothy D. Johnson, Ross M. Hussey, John C. Wittmer, Smith Jadin
Johnson, PLLC, Bloomington, Minnesota (for appellant)

Christopher L. Goodman, Thompson, Coe, Co usins & Irons, L.L.P., St. Paul, Minnesota
(for respondent)

Considered and decided by Jesson, Pres iding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Bryan,
Judge.
SYLLABUS
Dismissal of an action under Minnesota Ru le of Civil Procedure 5.04(a) is not
appropriate when a defendant files its answer within one year of commencement of the
action.
2
OPINION
BRYAN, Judge
In this insurance-coverage action, appella nt-insured challenges the district court’s
dismissal under rule 5.04(a) of appellant’s complaint against respondent-insurer. Because
the plain language of the rule is not limited to filing a complaint, but would also include
filing an answer, we reverse the district court’s decision to dismiss appellant’s complaint.
FACTS
Appellant Glen Edin of Edinburgh Association (Glen Edin) is a nonprofit common
interest community insured by respondent Hiscox Insuran ce Company (Hiscox). The
parties agree with the fo llowing pertinent facts. In June 2017, a storm caused damage to
the exteriors of Glen Edin’s buildings. Glen Edin filed a claim with Hiscox for wind and
hail damage under its insurance policy. The parties could not agree on the amount of the
loss and required an appraisal.
On June 11, 2019, Glen Edin served, but did not file, a complaint alleging breach of
contract and declaratory judgment. Six months later, Glen Edin filed and served its motion
for appointment of a neutral umpire for appraisal.1 As an exhibit to an affidavit in support
of Glen Edin’s memorandum of law, Glen Edin included the complaint it served on Hiscox.
In November 2019, the district court held a hearing on the motion and issued an order

1 We observe that the motion for appointment of a neutral umpire was filed within one year
of service of the complaint. Glen Edin, however, does not argue to this court that filing
this motion satisfied rule 5.04(a). Given ou r decision and the arguments presented, we
need not address whether Glen Edin satisfied rule 5.04(a ) when it filed the motion for
appointment of a neutral within one year of serving the complaint.
3
appointing a neutral umpire in December 2019. The judgment from that order was entered
on December 6, 2019.
Approximately eight months after being served with the complaint, Hiscox filed its
answer on January 30, 2020, making denials, stating affirmative defenses, and requesting
the following relief: an award of costs, disbur sements, and attorney fees. Glen Edin did
not file its complaint as a stand-alone document until March 3, 2021. That same day,
Hiscox requested that the district court dism iss the complaint under rule 5.04(a), because
the complaint was not filed within one year of service. Without briefing or further written
submissions of the parties, the district co urt held an informal hearing and ultimately
dismissed the case. Glen Edin then moved to vacate the ju dgment. The district court
denied Glen Edin’s motion to vacate. Glen Edin appeals.
ISSUES
Does Minnesota Rule of Civ il Procedure 5.04(a) require dismissal of the action if
the defendant filed its answer within one year of commencement of the action?
ANALYSIS
Glen Edin argues that the district court erred when it dismissed the case pursuant to
rule 5.04(a) because Hiscox had filed an answer within one year of being served with the
complaint.2 In response, Hiscox argues that rule 5.04(a) only pertains to filing of a

2 Glen Edin alternatively argues that the district court erred when it dismissed the complaint
because Glen Edin filed the complaint as an exhibit to an affidavit in support of its motion
to appoint a neutral umpire in November 2019 . Given our holding, we need not address
whether attaching the compla int in connection with a mo tion on which judgment was
entered satisfies rule 5.04(a).
4
complaint, and dismissal is proper even where a party has filed an answer within one year
of commencement of the action. We agre e with Glen Edin and do not adopt the
interpretation of rule 5.04(a) offered by Hiscox.3
We apply a de novo standard of review when interpreting the Minnesota Rules of
Civil Procedure. Gams v. Houghton , 884 N.W.2d 611, 616 (Minn. 2016). “When
interpreting court rules, we look first to the plain language.” Id. (quotation omitted). “If
the language of a rule is plain and unambiguous, we follow the rule’s plain language.” Id.
“A rule is ambiguous only if the language of the rule is subject to more than one reasonable
interpretation.” Id.
Rule 5.04(a) provides: “Any action that is not filed with the c ourt within one year
of commencement against any party is deemed dismissed with prejudice against all parties
unless the parties within that year sign a st ipulation to extend the filing period.” Hiscox
argues that the term “any action” is equivalent and limited to “a comp laint.” We are not
persuaded by Hiscox’s argument and agree with Glen Edin.4

3 Glen Edin also challenges the district c ourt’s decision to deny Glen Edin’s motion to
vacate. Given our decision regarding the pl ain language of rule 5.04(a), we need not
address this argument.
4 Glen Edin also advances an alternative argument: if the language of rule 5.04(a) is
ambiguous, the history of the amendments to th e rule resolves any am biguity in favor of
reversal of the district court’s decision. Mo re precisely, Glen Edin argues that the task
force recommending the current language of th e rule never referred to a plaintiff filing a
complaint in its report, but instead recomme nded changes in more open-ended and broad
terms so that “any party can file with the court at any time.” Recommendations of the
Minnesota Supreme Court Civil Justice Reform Task Force , No. ADM10-8051, at 21
(Minn. Dec. 23, 2011); see also Gams, 884 N.W.2d at 614; Order Adopting Amendments
to the Rules of Civil Procedure and General Rules of Practice Relating to the Civil Justice
Reform Task Force, No. ADM10-8051, at 3 (Minn. Feb. 4, 2013). Given our discussion
5
We begin with the observation that the rule does not include an actor, but rather uses
the passive voice: “any action that is not filed with the court.” In this way, the language of
the rule is not limited to a pleading filed by the plaintiff. In add ition, the applicable
definition of “action” dissuades us from accep ting the interpretation offered by Hiscox.
The legislature defined the term “action” broadly to mean “any proceeding in any court of
this state.” Minn. Stat. § 645.45(2) (2020). The Minnesota Supreme Court has previously
considered this statutory defi nition in conjunction with the di ctionary definitions of the
term “proceeding” to establish a broad definition of action: “the first definition in Black’s
Law Dictionary and a comment under the defin itions expressly state that a ‘proceeding’
encompasses the entire lawsuit and is broa der than any single act in a lawsuit.” Ellis v.
Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258, 263 (Minn. 2019) (def ining “action” and “proceeding” in the
context of a rent-escrow action based on definitions from section 645.45(2), Black’s Law
Dictionary, the American Heritage Dictionary, Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary,
and the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (citations omitted)). Likewise, the American
Heritage Dictionary defines an “action” as “a judicial proceeding whose purpose is to
obtain relief at the hands of a court.” See Action, The American Heritage Dictionary of the
English Language 17 (4th ed. 2006). These defin itions conflict with the narrow
interpretation offered by Hiscox and encompass pleadings like the answer filed in this case,
which requested an award of costs, disbursements, and attorney fees.

of the plain meaning of rule 5.04(a), however, we need not address whether the history of
the amendments also supports this interpretation.
6
Finally, the interpretation offered by Hiscox is at odds w ith prior decisions of this
court. For example, we have previously co ncluded that filing an answer was an action
under rule 5.04: “Minn. R. Civ. P. 5.04(a) requires the filing of the action within one year
of commencement. [Defendant’s] filing of the amended answer satisfied the requirements
of Minn. R. Civ. P. 5.04(a).” Sorchaga v. Ride Auto, LLC, 893 N.W.2d 360, 367 n.1 (Minn.
App. 2017), aff’d on other grounds 909 N.W.2d 550 (Minn. 2018). In addition, in MCHS
Red Wing v. Converse, we determined that, for the purposes of rule 5.04(a), service of an
answer commenced the action: “A civil action is commenced, for the purposes of Minn. R.
Civ. P. 5.04(a), when a plaintiff ineffec tively serves a defenda nt and the defendant
effectively serves an answer . . . .” 961 N. W.2d 780, 781 (Minn. App. 2021). Hiscox’s
interpretation is inconsistent with these two cases, and Hiscox offers no convincing
rationale to distinguish or disregard the analysis therein.
DECISION
Because Hiscox filed an answer on January 30, 2020, within one year of service of
the complaint on June 11, 2019, the district court erred when it dismissed the action under
rule 5.04(a). We reverse the dismissal and remand for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.