Andrew Wendell Bogue

In this ERISA case, plaintiff Cindy Hansen, an employee covered by her employer's health plan administered by Actuarial & Employee Benefit Services Co., sought reimbursement for gastric bypass surgery performed to treat her severe GERD after medical therapy failed. The plan denied the claims citing an exclusion for obesity treatments, even though medical providers had determined the procedure was medically necessary for GERD and noted it would also address her obesity. The court granted summary judgment to Hansen, holding that the surgery was covered because it was directed at a qualifying condition and the denial was arbitrary under the abuse of discretion standard applied to the plan administrator's decision. The opinion emphasizes that the obesity exclusion does not bar coverage when the primary purpose is treating another illness and notes the lack of timely written denial or appeal information provided to Hansen.

healthcarelabor & employment

This case involves a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) by plaintiff Daniel L. Sloat, a machine tool instructor at Western Dakota Technical Institute, after the school district did not renew his one-year contract when it eliminated the second-year program due to low enrollment below the 15-student threshold needed for state funding. The district moved for summary judgment, arguing the decision stemmed from budget constraints and enrollment shortfalls rather than age, while Sloat sought to amend his complaint and contended the reasons were pretextual. The court granted summary judgment to the district, finding Sloat failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination or show that the legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons were pretext under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, with no evidence linking the nonrenewal to age-based animus. The motion to amend was also denied as it would not alter the outcome. The ruling relied on undisputed facts about program funding, enrollment data, and the absence of any age-related statements or differential treatment tied to age.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved a former employee suing her restaurant employer and related parties under Title VII for alleged sexual harassment by coworkers, including unwelcome comments, touching, and an alleged rape, along with a related state law claim against a manager; the plaintiff also alleged she was not promoted or otherwise harmed due to the conduct. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice. The state claims were barred by South Dakota workers' compensation exclusivity rules. The Title VII claim failed because there was no tangible adverse employment action, vicarious liability did not attach, and the employer satisfied the Faragher affirmative defense through its anti-harassment policies and prompt corrective action on other complaints, which the plaintiff had not properly utilized.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved Eleanor Big Owl, a teacher at Porcupine Day School on an Oglala Sioux reservation, who sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. She alleged that the new school board violated its own handbook rules by failing to notify her by April 1, 1993, that it was contemplating non-renewal of her contract and by later informing her in June 1993 that she would not be rehired for the next year, causing her shock, stress, and sleeplessness. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claims with prejudice. The core reasoning was that employment decisions like contract renewal involved the exercise of discretion in furtherance of educational policy goals, triggering the discretionary function exception to the FTCA and depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction; alternatively, the alleged conduct was not extreme and outrageous under South Dakota law and the plaintiff alleged no physical injury to support a negligent infliction claim.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityfederal power

The case concerned a trade association for South Dakota banks that sued its former group insurer over an alleged failure to pay a policy surplus refund and related misconduct by an insurance agent, asserting seven state-law claims including breach of contract, negligence, and deceit arising from employee benefit policies. The defendant moved for summary judgment, contending that the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) preempted the state claims. The court granted the motion, holding that ERISA's preemption clause supersedes state laws that relate to employee benefit plans. It further determined that the Act's savings clause for state insurance regulations did not preserve the common-law causes of action, following the two-step analysis from Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux that focuses on the nature of the claims themselves rather than their factual basis.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentfederal power

This case involved plaintiffs seeking to hold the United States liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for alleged misfeasance by employees of the Crow Creek housing authority, claiming coverage under a provision of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding no subject-matter jurisdiction due to lack of waiver of sovereign immunity. The reasoning was that the contracts at issue were entered into with the Department of Housing and Urban Development rather than the Department of Health and Human Services or the Department of the Interior, so they did not qualify as self-determination contracts under the Act. The court rejected arguments that the contracts could have been authorized or that BIA involvement made them applicable, emphasizing that waivers of sovereign immunity must be strictly construed based on the statutory language.

federal powertorts & liability

In this case, the plaintiff sought coverage under her late husband's Allstate automobile insurance policy after suffering injuries in a single-vehicle accident where he was driving. The policy included a household exclusion that barred liability coverage for the plaintiff as a family member, prompting her to claim benefits under the uninsured motorist provision by arguing that the denial rendered the vehicle uninsured. The court granted summary judgment to Allstate, holding that no coverage was available. It reasoned that the policy language, when read as a whole, did not allow the same insured vehicle to qualify as uninsured, that the household exclusion could not be circumvented through the uninsured motorist section, and that recent South Dakota legislation explicitly permitted such exclusions in liability policies.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved Golden Reward Mining Company's claims against Jervis B. Webb Co. for a mobile reclaimer delivered in 1989 that allegedly failed to meet performance specifications in a heap-leach mining operation. After dismissing negligence and strict liability counts because South Dakota law bars recovery of pure economic loss absent personal injury, the court addressed the remaining breach of contract claim on a motion for reconsideration. Webb argued that the contract's warranty terms expressly prohibited consequential damages, and the court evaluated whether that limitation was unconscionable under South Dakota's Uniform Commercial Code. The court found that the parties, both sophisticated commercial entities, had engaged in arms-length negotiations and explicitly agreed to the limitation, with no procedural or substantive unconscionability present. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment barring recovery of consequential damages on the contract claim.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved two former employees of American Colloid Company who sued after their at-will employment was terminated in 1985, asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, and wrongful termination. The court considered the defendant's motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) or for judgment on the pleadings, converting them to summary judgment motions where appropriate. It decided that the plaintiffs failed to state viable claims, as South Dakota law under SDCL 60-4-4 permits termination at will absent a contract exception, and the employee handbook did not explicitly limit discharge to for-cause reasons or establish mandatory exclusive procedures. The court further reasoned that no additional consideration supported claims of lifetime employment, no public policy violation underpinned the tort claim, and the implied covenant and estoppel theories did not apply under state precedent like Osterkamp and Butterfield.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

The case involved an employee, Monte Talkington, who sued his former employer, American Colloid Company, after his 1985 termination, alleging breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, and related claims based on an employee handbook, oral statements, and a secrecy agreement. The defendant moved to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) or for judgment on the pleadings, contending that the claims failed to state a viable cause of action under South Dakota law. The court granted the motion, holding that the employment was at-will under SDCL 60-4-4, the handbook lacked explicit "for cause only" language or mandatory exclusive procedures sufficient to create a contract exception, and no additional consideration supported claims of permanent employment or other exceptions to at-will status. The court further reasoned that South Dakota precedents like Osterkamp and Butterfield set a high bar for handbook-based claims, which was not met here, and that related tort or estoppel theories also failed in the at-will context.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

This case is a declaratory judgment action brought by the Headleys against insurance companies to determine coverage for claims arising from effluent leaking from a neighboring NoDak sewage disposal system onto their property. The court held that St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company and Union Insurance Company had no duty to defend or indemnify Midland Heights Water & Service Company because the discharges were not sudden and accidental. The core reasoning was that Midland had known of the system's underdesign and overcapacity problems since 1977, the bentonite dam installed in 1981 was only a temporary fix that did not address the root issues, and subsequent overflows were therefore expected and part of a continuous harm rather than isolated events. The court also found no coverage for injunctive relief claims under state environmental law.

environmentpropertytorts & liability

In this personal injury action arising from a 1985 automobile collision in South Dakota, a Wyoming plaintiff sued a South Dakota defendant for negligence and sought punitive damages alleging the defendant was intoxicated. The court held a hearing under SDCL 21-1-4.1 and ruled that the punitive damages claim could proceed to the jury, finding clear and convincing evidence of willful and wanton conduct without requiring separate proof of malice. It further determined that the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle could not be imputed to the plaintiff because no joint enterprise existed, granted or denied various motions in limine on evidentiary issues such as speed and alcohol consumption (admitting some evidence only on damages), and ruled that the other driver's conduct could not mitigate punitive damages; the court also approved special voir dire interrogatories regarding the plaintiff's abortion allegedly resulting from her injuries.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court ruling in a Chapter 11 proceeding involving debtors who purchased a ranch under a contract for deed that was later subject to a state-court strict foreclosure judgment with a 90-day redemption period. The debtors filed for bankruptcy before the redemption period expired and sought to assume or cure the contract as executory under 11 U.S.C. § 365, leading the bankruptcy court to conclude that the automatic stay of § 362(a) applied to halt the foreclosure process and that the contract remained assumable. The district court reversed, determining that a contract for deed ceases to be executory once a foreclosure judgment is entered, that the mere running of the redemption period does not constitute a stayed judicial proceeding, judgment enforcement, or act to obtain estate property under § 362(a), and that redemption by full payment was the sole means to retain any interest. The court held that § 365 therefore did not govern and the bankruptcy court's orders were erroneous as a matter of law.

propertyprocedure

This consolidated case involves three actions by heirs or administrators of Indian allottees on the Rosebud and Pine Ridge reservations seeking to recover title, possession, and damages related to land from which they were allegedly excluded due to forced fee patents issued under the Dawes Act, the 1889 Sioux Act, and the Burke Act. Plaintiffs claimed the patents were unlawfully issued without consent before the trust period ended, breaching federal fiduciary duties, and asserted claims against federal officials, private landowners, and state or local entities under theories including trespass, conversion, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights violations, and invalidity of foreclosures or tax levies. The court granted motions to dismiss the complaints with prejudice, holding that the claims failed to state a viable cause of action, including due to the passage of time under relevant statutes and lack of jurisdiction or cognizable legal theory against the defendants. The reasoning centered on the historical framework of allotment legislation, the finality of fee patents once issued, and the absence of any basis to unwind long-settled titles or impose liability on current owners or the government.

propertycivil rightsfederal power

The case involved a plaintiff rendered paraplegic in a 4-H Rodeo bareback bronc riding event who sued multiple defendants for negligence. A jury found three defendants liable and awarded $1,250,000 in damages, while the plaintiff had settled with six other defendants for $125,500; the verdict was general and did not apportion fault. The court addressed how to deduct the settlements from the verdict under South Dakota's Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act, reconciling conflicting interpretations of pro tanto versus pro rata reductions based on precedents like Degen v. Bayman and Duncan v. Pennington County Housing Authority. The court ruled that a pro rata reduction applied because it was larger than the settlement amounts and aligned with the statute's goal of extinguishing contribution rights among tortfeasors, resulting in a judgment of $416,250 against the three liable defendants.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involves a lessor (plaintiff) suing oil and gas lessees (defendants) for allegedly breaching an implied covenant against depreciating the lessor's interest through drainage of oil or gas to adjacent tracts leased by the same defendants. The court denied the defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, ruling that the reasonable prudent operator doctrine—which would require the plaintiff to prove a profitable offset well—does not apply when the lessee also controls the draining tract, and it denied the Rule 12(b)(7) motion to join an additional party. The court also denied partial judgment on the pleadings regarding punitive damages, allowing the claim to proceed on possible tort or fraud theories, but it applied a six-year statute of limitations under state law, rejecting a longer ten-year period and finding no extension available.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

In this products liability case, plaintiff James Bradley sued multiple tire and wheel manufacturers after suffering injuries from an exploding multi-piece truck wheel assembly owned by his employer, but the wheel was lost before it could be inspected or its maker identified. Each defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs could not prove which company manufactured the specific wheel. The court granted the motions, holding that a plaintiff must identify the manufacturer of the injury-causing product as an essential element of the claim. It rejected the plaintiffs' alternative theories of liability—alternative liability, concert of action, enterprise liability, and market share liability—because the wheel bore distinctive manufacturer markings, the loss of the evidence was not attributable to the defendants, and the plaintiffs did not show that all similar wheels were defective.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Thomas Pellegrino suing American Greetings Corp. and related defendants for copyright infringement, fraudulent trademark, and unfair competition, claiming that the Ziggy cartoon character and related products infringed on his copyrighted books Gobble-Glunk of Whipple Gulch and Ziggy Meets the Mystical Children from Dreamland, which featured a character named Ziggy. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. It applied the extrinsic test for substantial similarity and found that the only common element was the name Ziggy, with no other similarities in ideas, physical descriptions, or story elements, as Pellegrino's Ziggy was an undefined small boy in a mystical adventure while the defendants' was a distinct adult character in everyday situations; the remaining claims failed because they depended on a finding of copyright infringement and the defendants held a valid trademark.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a dispute over damages sought from a former guardian for alleged mismanagement of an estate that included Indian trust land and personal property on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. After a state court judgment against the guardian was appealed and the state action dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the heirs filed suit in federal district court asserting diversity jurisdiction. The court held that it possessed subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the suit was between Indian parties and thus did not implicate the non-interference policy of Williams v. Lee or O'Connell v. Hamm. It further ruled that abstention was inappropriate because the state court lacked jurisdiction and any state judgment would be unenforceable on the reservation. One plaintiff was dismissed for failure to state a claim.

federal powerprocedureproperty

This case concerns a dispute over an alleged oral contract between Golden Plains Feedlot and Great Western Sugar Company for the purchase of beet pulp feed. The buyer claimed the seller breached by refusing further deliveries after partial performance, while the seller asserted the statute of frauds defense and counterclaimed for unpaid goods delivered. The court granted summary judgment to the seller, holding that the oral contract was unenforceable under the statute of frauds as no sufficient writing existed and equitable estoppel was unavailable under applicable Nebraska law. However, the court found the buyer liable for the approximately 230 tons already received and accepted, with the price term to be resolved at trial, either under the alleged contract or an implied agreement.

business & regulatoryprocedure