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 2nd 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 1st 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 .
