 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Tapio v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co.11/29/2000
Appeal from the First Judicial Circuit, Buffalo County, SD [Formerly a Part of the Fourth Judicial Circuit] Hon. Ronald K. Miller, Judge
Reversed
Considered on Briefs Sep 18, 2000; Opinion Filed Nov 29, 2000
[ ] Amber Tapio and Sunny Big Eagle (Tapio) brought a declaratory judgment action against Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Company (Grinnell) to determine whether Grinnell was obligated to provide coverage to Delores Sazue, the named insured on a policy issued by Grinnell. Grinnell appeals from an order granting summary judgment in favor of Tapio. We reverse.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
[ ] There is no dispute as to the facts leading up to this appeal. On March 28, 1997, Sean Sazue was driving a car owned by his mother, Delores Sazue. While driving the vehicle, Sean negligently collided with Tapio. At all times material to this action, Delores' vehicle was insured by a policy issued by Grinnell. Included with that policy was a Driver Restriction Endorsement (endorsement). This endorsement was signed by Delores and stated that " t is agreed that this policy will not provide coverage for any accident or claim while any vehicle is being operated by Sean Andrew Sazue."
[ ] Tapio brought a personal injury lawsuit against Sean for his personal negligence and separately against Delores for negligent entrustment of her vehicle to Sean, to recover for injuries sustained in the accident. The lawsuit against Sean was settled for the policy limits of his personal insurance, leaving only the negligent entrustment claim against Delores. Grinnell claimed that because the endorsement excludes coverage for any accident or claim while the vehicle is being operated by Sean, it also excludes coverage for the claim against Delores. Because the negligent entrustment claim arose out of Sean's operation of Delores' vehicle, Grinnell claimed that no coverage existed.
[ ] Tapio then initiated this declaratory judgment action to determine Grinnell's duties under the policy. Both sides moved for summary judgment. After a hearing, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Tapio. Grinnell appeals, raising this single issue:
Whether the trial court erred in concluding that Grinnell's driver restriction endorsement did not exclude coverage to the named insured.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[ ] The standard of review of a circuit court's order of summary judgment is well settled and was recently reiterated in Holzer v. Dakota Speedway, Inc., 2000 SD 65, 610 NW2d 787.
Summary judgment is authorized "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." SDCL 15-6-56(c). We will affirm only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the legal questions have been correctly decided. Bego v. Gordon, 407 NW2d 801, 804 (SD 1987). All reasonable inferences drawn from the facts must be viewed in favor of the non-moving party. Morgan v. Baldwin, 450 NW2d 783, 785 (SD 1990). The burden is on the moving party to clearly show an absence of any genuine issue of material fact and an entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Wilson v. Great N. Ry. Co., 83 SD 207, 212, 157 NW2d 19, 21 (1968). Id., , 610 NW2d at 791-92 (citing Kimball Investment Land, Ltd. v. Chmela, 2000 SD 6, , 604 NW2d 289, 292). Furthermore, " hen interpreting insurance contracts, we have uniformly held them reviewable as a matter of law under the de novo standard." Nation Sun Indus., Inc., v. S.D. Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 1999 SD 63, , 596 NW2d
Page 1 2 3 South Dakota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|