Nodak Mutual Insurance Co. v. McDowell
South Dakota Supreme Court · 2010-06-30 · cited 2×
Nodak Mutual Insurance paid no-fault benefits to its North Dakota insured, Nichole McDowell, after a South Dakota car accident caused by South Dakota resident Kevin Dunn. McDowell sued Dunn for negligence and settled the case for $20,000 without notifying Nodak, which then sued both defendants seeking reimbursement through subrogation. The trial court granted summary judgment to McDowell and Dunn, ruling that Nodak had no subrogation right because Dunn qualified as a secured person under North Dakota law. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that Dunn was not a secured person since his vehicle was neither registered nor operated in North Dakota at the time of the accident, and North Dakota no-fault statutes do not convert a South Dakota liability policy into no-fault coverage. The court remanded the case for further proceedings on Nodak's subrogation claim.
business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure
Reinfeld v. Hutcheson
South Dakota Supreme Court · 2010-05-26 · cited 10×
In Reinfeld v. Hutcheson, the plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence after a 2004 car accident in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, where the defendant admitted fault but contested the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and damages. The jury awarded past and future medical expenses but nothing for pain and suffering, disability, or lost wages or earning capacity. The trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for a new trial, finding the damages award inadequate and inconsistent with the evidence of the plaintiff's ongoing pain and medical needs. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a new trial based on the jury's verdict. The court also addressed related evidentiary and jury instruction issues but did not reach them after affirming the new trial order.
torts & liabilityprocedure
In Re the Guardianship of S.M.N.
South Dakota Supreme Court · 2010-04-07 · cited 32×
This case involved a dispute over the guardianship of three minor children between their mother, A.G., and their paternal grandmother, L.N., after the mother temporarily placed the children with the grandmother while relocating and seeking employment. The circuit court granted permanent guardianship to the grandmother under the South Dakota Guardianship Act and awarded visitation to the mother, while also appointing counsel for the mother at county expense. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the guardianship and visitation orders, finding they were properly based on statutory authority and the children's best interests, but reversed the portion requiring Hughes County to pay the mother's attorney's fees, holding that no statute authorizes imposing such costs on the county rather than other parties or sources. The court noted the circuit court's authority to appoint counsel but clarified limits on fee allocation in guardianship proceedings.
family law
Wilcox v. VERMEULEN
South Dakota Supreme Court · 2010-03-31 · cited 22×
The case involved a dispute over dividing the remaining corpus of the SVB Trust, which held settlement proceeds from wrongful death lawsuits filed by the estates of three individuals killed in an airplane crash. Stacie Wilcox, as personal representative of the Sheesley estate, sought a declaratory judgment to apportion the funds between the Sheesley and Vermeulen estates after the trust agreement provided no distribution formula. The trial court applied judicial estoppel to bar Dee Ann Vermeulen, as personal representative of the Vermeulen estate, from introducing additional expert testimony on economic losses in the distribution proceeding, on the grounds that the parties had jointly relied on a single forensic economist during the underlying litigation and settlements. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in precluding the new evidence based on the parties' prior consistent positions.
proceduretorts & liability
Janis v. Nash Finch Co.
South Dakota Supreme Court · 2010-03-17 · cited 40×
Francis Janis sued Nash Finch Company, operator of Prairie Market, alleging negligence after he slipped on a patch of ice hidden under a rug inside the store entrance, fell twice, and injured his knee and wrist. The trial court granted summary judgment to the store, finding no duty of care because the risk was not foreseeable in the absence of any prior similar incidents. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that a business possessor owes invitees a duty to exercise reasonable care to discover concealed conditions that may pose an unreasonable risk of harm, even if unknown, and that the jury must determine whether the store would have discovered the ice and realized the risk under the circumstances. The court clarified that the duty under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343 arises from both known dangers and those discoverable through inspection, rejecting the trial court's foreseeability analysis based solely on lack of prior incidents.
torts & liability
O'Neill Farms, Inc. v. Reinert
South Dakota Supreme Court · 2010-03-10 · cited 12×
The case involved a breach of contract action by O'Neill Farms, a South Dakota corporation, against Texas resident Todd Reinert over disputes arising from a lease agreement for a John Deere combine that included a forum-selection clause designating Todd County, South Dakota as the venue for any legal action. The circuit court granted Reinert's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that the forum-selection clause was unreasonable and unenforceable and that exercising jurisdiction would violate due process. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the clause was enforceable because the lease resulted from an arms-length transaction and Reinert failed to make a strong showing that South Dakota was an unreasonable forum or would deprive him of his day in court. The court reasoned that prior dealings between the parties, partial performance and execution of the agreement in South Dakota, and the clause's presumption of validity supported its enforcement, thereby establishing Reinert's consent to personal jurisdiction.
business & regulatoryprocedure