Three Decisions today by SD Supreme Court

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning:

 

1)    Certified Questions from federal judge (SD Division of Insurance matter);

 

2)   Exclusivity of Work Comp;

 

3)   Trust amendment litigation

 

Summaries follows:

 

DEITER v. XL SPECIALTY INS. CO., 2022 S.D. 51: This proceeding arose in the SD Supreme Court with the certification of two questions from SD Federal District Court, Honorable Roberto A. Lange.  The underlying efforts in this litigation involve the SD Division of Insurance’s effort, as a “liquidator,” to deal with an insolvent insurer.  This particular lawsuit was filed in state court and removed to federal court.  The Federal Court certified two questions to the SD Supreme Court.  This decision answers 1 question, but declines to answer the 2^nd question because it would involve fact-finding.  The gist of the questions and the result in the SD Supreme Court may be ascertained by reading the 1^st and last two paragraphs of the Court’s opinion:

 

[¶1.] This matter is before us as two certified questions of law from the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, asking whether SDCL 58-29B-56 provides a state insurance liquidator an additional 180 days to provide notice of a claim under a claims-made professional liability policy. We hold that it does.

 

  *   *   *  

[¶32.] While we may “answer questions of law certified to [this Court] by . . . the United States district court,” we cannot answer questions of fact. SDCL 15-24A-1. We therefore cannot extend our authority to the second portion of the certified question, which asks whether the Liquidator’s November 1, 2018 notice of claim was timely and triggered coverage under the policy. Beyond this, the parties’ submissions suggest that questions remain as to whether additional, more detailed allegations described by the Liquidator in April and October of 2019 would relate back to the November 1, 2018 notice because they describe “interrelated wrongful acts.”

 

Conclusion

 

[¶33.] We answer the first sentence of the certified question in the affirmative and decline to address the second part of the question.

 

The Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Salter.  Circuit Judge Craig Pfeifle sat on this case, in lieu of Justice DeVaney.

 

 

RIES v. JM CUSTOM HOMES, LLC, 2022 S.D. 52: Employee of Sub-contractor brought negligence claim in state court directly against the General Contractor. The trial court granted summary judgment for General Contractor on the basis of statutory immunity, as provided by SD's work comp provision, SDCL 62-3-10.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed in a 4-1 ruling.  The Court’s opinion is authored by Justice Myren.

 

Chief Justice Jensen filed a dissenting opinion, stating:

 

[Employer] failed to make the necessary showing that it is an ‘employer’ entitled to immunity under the exclusive remedy provisions of the workers’ compensation statutes…

 

[Employer] failed to present any facts in support of its statement of material facts showing that it paid [Plaintiff] for any services he performed or that it is an employer entitled to claim immunity as provided in the exclusive remedy statute in SDCL 62-3-2. Instead, [Employer] presented facts showing that [Plaintiff’s Employer] was a subcontractor of [Employer] and that “[Plaintiff] was an employee of [subcontractor].”

 

HICKEY LIVING TRUST, 2022 S.D. 53:  This litigation evolved over an effort to amend a trust, with facts and background not well-suited for a simple description.  In lieu thereof, I will reproduce the opening paragraph of the Court’s opinion which describes the litigation, the result at the trial level and the result on appeal, as follows:

 

[¶1.] Bradley Hickey filed a petition challenging the validity of an amendment to the Shirley A. Hickey Trust (Trust). Nearly a year later, Kristina Lippert and Darren Hickey filed a motion to intervene in the petition. The circuit court denied the motion to intervene, finding that the motion was untimely under SDCL 15-6-24(a) because Kristina and Darren had failed to timely challenge the validity of the Trust as required by SDCL 55-4-57(a). Kristina and Darren filed a motion for clarification and reconsideration, requesting the court to reconsider the denial of the motion to intervene and to clarify their ability to participate in discovery and at trial. The circuit court denied the motion for reconsideration and determined Kristina and Darren could not participate in the trial through the presentation of evidence and the examination of witnesses. Kristina and Darren appeal the denial of their motion to intervene and the denial of their motion for clarification and reconsideration. We reverse, vacate a portion of the order denying the motion for clarification and reconsideration, and remand for further proceedings.

 

This decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen.

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

 

One new decision by SD Supreme Court (Former employee prevails in dispute over non-compete agreement)

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia:

 

1. Former employee prevails in dispute over non-compete agreement.

 

DT-TRAK CONSULTING, INC. v. KOLDA, 2022 S.D. 50:  This is an intermediate appeal from the trial court’s ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment in regard to Plaintiff Employer’s action to enforce a non-compete agreement.  The trial court had denied both motions, holding that there were sufficient facts to allow the case to proceed before a jury.  The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the employee should have received a favorable summary judgment on Counts 1, 2, and 4.  The Court also notes that Plaintiff Employer “is no longer seeking relief under Count III of its Complaint.”  This decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Kern.

NOTE:  We are told in¶2 of the opinion that Plaintiff Employer is a “medical consulting firm and independent contractor” that “provides consulting services to hospitals and other medical providers, such as medical coding, compliance auditing, billing, medical staffing, workflow analysis, and other support services. DT-Trak alleges that it provides its services throughout the United States; specifically, that it has active contracts with clients in 19 states and potential clients or pending bids for clients in several other states.”

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

 

3 reversals by SD Supreme Court today, Opinions by Justice DeVaney

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning:

 

1)    Post-divorce squabble addressed;

 

2)   Reversible error to dismiss claims involving members of LLC;

 

3)   Tort claim against employer denied.

 

Summaries follows:

 

FARMER v. FARMER and FIRST WESTERN V. LAKOTA LAKE CAMP, LLC and FARMER, 2022 S.D. 47: This decision addresses consolidated appeals in a post-divorce squabble for H & W who “acquired a significant amount of land in the Black Hills and formed multiple legal entities for the development and sale of the land.”  The 1^st and 47^th paragraphs of the Court’s decision are set forth here:

 

[¶1.] In this consolidated appeal, James Farmer challenges orders entered by two different circuit court judges related to his distributional interest in Lakota Lake Camp, LLC. James and Lakota Lake also challenge orders related to the release of funds to James’s wife, Lori Lieberman, previously held by the clerk of courts following an execution sale of property owned by Lakota Lake. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

 

[¶47.] Nevertheless, we need not decide at this juncture whether the collection court erred in denying Lakota Lake’s motion for release of funds because at the time Lakota Lake filed the motion with the collection court, the divorce court had already ordered that the funds be released to Lori. Having now concluded that the divorce court erred in ordering the release of the funds, the proper disposition of the excess sale proceeds remains to be determined. We therefore vacate the collection court’s order denying Lakota Lake’s motion and remand for further proceedings before the collection court related to the proper disposition of the funds at issue.

 

The Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney. 

 

MACH v. CONNORS, 2022 S.D. 48: The essence of this appeal is, as described in the opening paragraph, as follows:

 

[¶1.] A limited liability company and one of its members, Ronita Mach, brought suit against Toni Connors, who is also a member of the company. The complaint alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of loyalty, breach of the duty of care, conversion, and unjust enrichment related to conduct allegedly occurring in connection with the ownership and operation of a pet grooming and bathing business. The circuit court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

 

This opinion methodically reviews each of the various claims asserted – alleged breach of duty of loyalty, alleged breach of duty of care, alleged conversion, and alleged unjust enrichment – and holds that the trial court erred in dismissing each one. This opinion also holds that the Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages was sufficiently pled as part of the conversion claim. 

 

This decision is unanimous (4-0), with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.  Justice Salter did not participate. 

 

ALTHOFF v. PRO-TEC ROOFING, INC., 2022 S.D. 49:  Estate of employee brought this tort action against the employer, asserting that causation of the death of the employee was essentially an intentional tort, actionable outside the scope of Work Comp.  The trial court denied Employer’s motion for summary judgment.  Intermediate appeal was granted.  The SD Supreme Court reversed, holding that the “undisputed facts” fail to establish an intentional tort and that employer is entitled to summary judgment.  The Court’s ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

 

 

 

SD Supreme Court hands down 4 new decisions today

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down four decisions this morning:

 

1. Brule County real estate dispute resolved;

 

2. Brule County real estate dispute resolved;

 

3. Wind Energy Farm in NE South Dakota approved;

 

4. Wind Energy Farm in NE South Dakota approved.

 

Summaries follows:

 

HEALY RANCH v. HEALY, 2022 S.D. 43: The situation in this appeal is described in the first two paragraphs of the Court’s opinion, as follows:

 

[¶1.] This case arises under the South Dakota Marketable Title Act (SDMTA) as a quiet title action by Healy Ranch, Inc., (HRI), seeking to defeat a notice of claim filed by Bret Healy to certain real property in Brule County. HRI asserts that doing so will establish for itself marketable record title to the property. In its complaint, HRI also sought costs and attorney fees, alleging that Bret had filed the notice for the purpose of slandering title to the property. Bret filed a counterclaim in which he sought to quiet title to the property in the name of Healy Ranch Partnership (HRP).

[¶2.] The circuit court granted HRI’s motion for summary judgment, voiding Bret’s notice of claim, but denied HRI’s request for attorney fees. HRI appeals this latter decision, and by notice of review, Bret appeals the circuit court’s determination that HRI possesses marketable record title to the property. We affirm, but under a different analysis than the circuit court.

 

This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Salter.  Circuit Judge Sogn sat on this case, in lieu of Chief Justice Jensen. 

 

HEALY RANCH v. MINES, 2022 S.D. 44: The situation in this appeal is described in the first paragraph of the Court’s opinion, as follows:

 

[¶1.] Healy Ranch Partnership (HRP) commenced this action to quiet title to a parcel of land located in Brule County. The complaint named multiple defendants, including the current possessors of the land, the previous possessors, and another member of HRP. The individuals currently in possession of the land filed a counterclaim, alleging they had acquired title through adverse possession. The circuit court decided motions to dismiss and for summary judgment adversely to HRP, determining that the current possessors of the land acquired title by adverse possession. HRP appeals. We reverse the court’s decision to grant the motion to dismiss but affirm its summary judgment decision quieting title in favor of the current possessors.

 

This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Salter. 

 

CHRISTENSON v. CROWNED RIDGE WIND, LLC, 2022 S.D. 45:  South Dakota PUC granted Crowned Ridge a permit for construction of wind energy farm in NE South Dakota, over objection by area residents.  The Circuit Court affirmed.  The SD Supreme Court also affirmed. This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Salter.  Circuit Judge Krull sat on this case, in lieu of Chief Justice Jensen.

 

CHRISTENSON v. CROWNED RIDGE WIND, LLC, 2022 S.D. 46: South Dakota PUC granted Crowned Ridge a permit for construction of large wind energy farm in NE South Dakota, over objection by neighboring residents.  The Circuit Court affirmed.  The SD Supreme Court also affirmed. This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Salter.  Retired Justice Severson sat on this case, in lieu of Chief Justice Jensen.

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx