Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs entered into a contract with DJ Construction (DJ) to build a home on their property. Construction was halted two years later after Plaintiffs discovered significant water damage in the home. Plaintiffs sued DJ, seeking to recover for the damage to their home and DJ's failure to complete the house. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, DJ's insurer, denied DJ's requests for defense and indemnity against Plaintiffs' claims, determining coverage was not provided for under the terms of the policy. Plaintiffs subsequently entered into a stipulated judgment and settlement agreement with DJ in which DJ confessed judgment and assigned its rights and claims against Owners to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs then filed suit against Owners based on Owners' failure to defend and indemnify DJ. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Owners, determining there was no coverage under the policy because multiple policy exclusions applied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Owners on Plaintiffs' breach of contract and bad faith claims based upon its determination that multiple policy exclusions applied. View "Swenson v. Owners Ins. Co." on Justia Law

An intoxicated driver (Driver) struck and injured several children. Driver later pleaded guilty to two counts of vehicular battery. Driver's insurer (Insurer) brought a declaratory action seeking a ruling that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the driver in any negligence suit brought on the children's behalf. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Insurer, ruling that coverage had expired twelve hours prior to the accident. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that by failing to accept the offer from Insurer to renew her insurance policy, Driver's coverage expired the day before the accident under the express and unambiguous terms of the insurance contract. View "Alpha Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Ihle" on Justia Law

Upon Marcus Degen's purchase of a home, Marcus purchased a homeowner's insurance policy with Hanson Farm Mutual Insurance Company of South Dakota (HFMIC). Marcus, Tina Sellers, and Tina's two daughters moved into the house. One evening, while Marcus was leveling dirt on the property with a skid loader, Marcus hit and killed one of the girls, Adrianna. Tina pursued a wrongful death action against Marcus a year later. HFMIC filed a declaratory judgment action asking the trial court to determine whether it had an obligation to indemnify or defend Marcus in the underlying wrongful death action. The trial court ruled in favor of HFMIC, determining that Adrianna was in Marcus's care and was therefore excluded from coverage under a household exclusion contained in the policy. Both Tina, as the personal representative of her daughter's estate, and Marcus appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court correctly concluded that the phrase "in your care" was unambiguous and in concluding that Adrianna was in Marcus's care; and (2) because she was in Marcus's care, Adrianna was excluded from coverage under the household exclusion contained in the policy. View "Hanson Farm Mut. Ins. Co. of S.D. v. Degen" on Justia Law

An Arizona couple was injured on their motorcycle by another biker. The accident occurred in South Dakota. Because the other motorcyclist left the scene, the couple sought uninsured motorist benefits from their insurer. The couple's policy was issued in Arizona for a motorcycle registered and principally garaged in Arizona. The insurer tendered the policy's full uninsured motorist benefits of $15,000 per person. However, the couple would have recovered $25,000 per person in South Dakota had they been able to obtain the other biker's liability insurance. The circuit court declared that the terms of the Arizona insurance policy, rather than South Dakota law, governed the applicable coverage. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that altering the terms of the parties' contracts in these circumstances was not supported by law. View "Milinkovich v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Ila and Gary Fedderson owned a business called Whisky Flow Dining and Minor Alley. Whisky Flow was destroyed by fire, after which Ila and Gary submitted a sworn proof of loss statement to the business's insurer, Columbia Insurance Group. Gary, however, made misrepresentations and committed fraud in submitting the statement. Columbia declined to pay Ila benefits, relying on a condition that voided the policy for fraud or misrepresentation by any insured. Ila filed suit, claiming that she was an innocent insured who was entitled to her share of the claim that related to her fifty percent interest in the business. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Columbia. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court correctly granted Columbia's motion for summary judgment, as Gary's misrepresentation and fraud voided the policy. View "Fedderson v. Columbia Ins. Group" on Justia Law

While driving a car owned by her divorced parents, Plaintiff was hit and injured by an uninsured drunk driver. Plaintiff's father's policy specifically covered Plaintiff's car and paid Plaintiff $100,000 in uninsured motorist benefits. This amount did not fully compensate Plaintiff for her injuries, however, and Plaintiff filed a claim under her mother's policy with Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska (Insurer). The policy did not specifically cover Plaintiff's car but covered Plaintiff as an insured. Farmers denied Plaintiff's claim for uninsured motorist benefits under an "owned-but-not-insured" exclusion in its policy. Plaintiff subsequently filed an action seeking a declaration that the "owned-but-not-insured" exclusion was void and that she was entitled to uninsured motorist benefits from Farmers. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Farmers, concluding that the exclusion was valid and enforceable in relation to uninsured motorist coverage. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court incorrectly applied the law when it used the Supreme Court's statements in previous cases to conclude that the exclusion was valid and enforceable under S.D. Codified Laws 58-11-9; and (2) the "owned-but-not-insured" exclusion was void in this case. View "Wheeler v. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. of Neb." on Justia Law

Insurer denied coverage for two unassembled wind turbines that were destroyed in a fire on Ranch's property. Insurer claimed that a policy exclusion for "fences, windmills, windchargers, or their towers" permitted it to deny coverage for the loss. Ranch sued Insurer, asserting Insurer committed a breach of contract and acted in bad faith in denying coverage for the unassembled wind turbines. The circuit court granted Insurer's motion for summary judgment, finding the policy exclusion applied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court correctly applied the law in determining Ranch's unassembled wind turbines were precluded from coverage under Insurer's policy exclusion, as the language of the exclusion was unambiguous and the plain and ordinary meanings of "windmill" and "windcharger" encompassed the unassembled wind turbines. View "Ass Kickin Ranch, LLC v. N. Star Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant Paul Wentzlaff, an insurance agent, stole thousands of dollars from Harvey Severson, an elderly man who asked Defendant to help manage his financial affairs. Plaintiff Donald Hass, as personal representative for Severson’s estate, sued Defendant and two insurance companies who appointed Defendant as an agent, North American Company for Life and Health Insurance (North American) and Allianz Life Insurance of North America (Allianz). Hass and North American each moved for summary judgment and Allianz joined North American’s motion. After a hearing, the circuit court denied Plaintiff's motion and granted the insurance companies’ motion. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the insurance companies were vicariously liable for Defendant's acts. Based on undisputed material facts on the record in this case, the Supreme Court found that Defendant Wentzlaff was not acting within the scope of his employment when he stole money from Severson, and thus, as a matter of law, North American and Allianz were not vicariously liable for his acts. The Court affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurance companies. View "Hass v. Wentzlaff" on Justia Law

James Cornelius initiated a declaratory judgment action against National Casualty Company to determine whether a policy of insurance issued by National Casualty to Cornelius's employer, Live Line Maintenance, provided uninsured motorist coverage to Cornelius for injuries he sustained while occupying a vehicle owned by Live Line. The circuit court granted National Casualty's motion for summary judgment, finding that Cornelius could not recover uninsured motorist benefits. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment for National Casualty because Cornelius presented evidence to support his claim that there was a casual connection between Live Line and Live Line's proprietor's alleged negligent maintenance of the work vehicle and the accident that caused Cornelius's injuries.

Patrick Kendall suffered a work-related injury while working at John Morrell and Company, a self-insured employer. Morrell initially accepted Kendall's workers' compensation claim, but because Kendall later missed a number of physical therapy and doctor's appointments, Morrell later denied all further benefits relating to the injury. Almost three years later, Kendall filed a petition with the state Department of Labor requesting additional benefits for the injury. The Department granted summary judgment in favor of Morrell, concluding that the petition was barred by the statute of limitations. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that all of Kendall's claims for benefits were procedurally barred by the statute of limitations in S.D. Codified Laws 62-7-35.