The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia:
- Non-resident UIM insurer is not subject to personal
jurisdiction in SD simply because its non-resident insured is injured in
SD
DAVIS
v. OTTEN and MEEMIC INSURANCE, 2022 S.D. 39:
Michigan Passenger on motorcycle driven by another Michigan citizen
sustained medical expenses and damages exceeding $300K in accident near
Sturgis. Passenger, receiving offer
of policy limit of $25K from other
driver, is pursuing UIM and no-fault benefits under Passenger’s Michigan
insurer. Michigan insurer sought
dismissal on basis of “lack of personal jurisdiction” in South Dakota. Trial Court asserted personal
jurisdiction. The SD Supreme Court
reversed, agreeing with Michigan insurer.
The issue, as framed and resolved in the concluding paragraph of the
opinion is set forth here:
[¶27.] A South Dakota court’s
exercise of personal jurisdiction over [the Michigan insurer] under these
circumstances is improper under SDCL 15-7-2.
[A] court faced with the facts presented here cannot exercise personal
jurisdiction over a non-resident insurer on the basis of a breach of contract
claim between a non-resident insured and
non-resident insurer who has not engaged in significant activities within the state. As such, the minimum contacts necessary to
support the exercise of personal jurisdiction in accordance with due process
requirements are not satisfied.
This
ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Kern.
This
decision may be accessed at
