The
SD Supreme Court handed down four decisions this morning:
- Breach of contract action reversed;
- “out of plan” medical expenses permitted in work comp
setting;
- Prison sentence for Facebook fraud scheme upheld;
- Farm liability insurer prevails on coverage for
personal injuries claim.
Summaries
follows:
PESKA
PROPERTIES, INC. v. NORTHERN RENTAL CORP., 2022 S.D. 33: In this breach of
contract action, Defendants conceded they breached the contract, arguing that
the only issue was calculation of damages.
The trial court awarded damages to Plaintiff according to Defedants’
viewpoint – an amount less than Plaintiff’s contention. The Court also declined to award attorney
fees to Plaintiff. The SD Supreme Court
reversed and remanded on both issues, directing the trial court to determine
damages so as to restore plaintiff “to the position it would have
occupied if the contract had been performed.” The Court also directed the trial court to
re-consider Plaintiff’s entitlement to attorney fees, in accordance with the
contract’s provision for such an award.
This decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Myren.
DITTMAN
v. RAPID CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 2022 S.D. 34: Back injury on the job. The trial court’s ruling was reversed and
remanded because it held that expenses incurred by an “out of plan” doctor were
not compensable. The SD Supreme Court
reversed and remanded, holding that the “out of plan” doctor’s expenses were
compensable as a referral under SDCL 62-4-43 and ARSD 47:03:04:05(4). This decision is unanimous (5-0), with
opinion authored by Justice Myren.
STATE
v. OTOBHIALE, 2022 S.D. 35: Defendant was convicted by jury and sentenced to 6
years in prison for “aiding, abetting, or advising grand theft by deception.” The facts show that the victim, a 76 year old
widow, was bilked out of some $14,000 by the creation of a false identity on
Facebook and a plea for money. This
Defendant, located in New Jersey, was the actual recipient of the funds. Defendant was arrested in New Jersey and
brought to South Dakota for prosecution.
The SD Supreme Court rejected Defendant’s appeal based upon alleged
insufficiency of evidence and evidentiary matters. This decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion
authored by Justice Myren.
NATIONWIDE
AGRIBUSINESS v. FITCH, 2022 S.D. 36: Insurer under a farm liability policy
successfully sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to indemnify nor
defend a “personal injury lawsuit stemming from an accident that occurred on
[insureds’] farm.” The
plaintiff is the grandson of the insureds and he sustained permanent injuries
to his legs when he was trapped under a gator while attempting to spray for
weeds on insureds’ property. The trial
court held that while coverage appears to exist under the “Recreational
Vehicle Liability Coverage Endorsement,” this incident is excluded when , “the
Gator when it [wa]s ‘used for farming purposes.’” The SD Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous decision
(5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Salter.
Both the trial court and the SD Supreme Court were disinclined to find
coverage through the “concurrent cause doctrine,” which is addressed in this opinion. The “concurrent cause doctrine” has been addressed in previous decisions by
the SD Supreme Court, but never adopted by the Court.
These
decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
