 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
National Sun Industries Inc. v. South Dakota Farm Bureau Insurance Co.5/26/1999
HTML Code Copyright State Bar of South Dakota, 1999
South Dakota Supreme Court Appeal from the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Brown County, SD Hon. Larry H. Lovrien, Judge
Affirmed
Considered on Briefs Apr 26, 1999; Opinion Filed May 26, 1999
[ ] The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of South Dakota Farm Bureau Insurance Company (Farm Bureau). National Sun Industries, Inc. (National) appeals and we affirm.
FACTS
[ ] On September 16, 1992, National entered into a sunflower storage and handling agreement with L&O;Acres, Inc. On May 23, 1993, sunflowers owned by National and stored in a bin owned by L&O;were destroyed by fire. At the time of the incident, Farm Bureau was L&O;s insurer.
[ ] National sought to recover damages for its loss from L&O;and, on September 8, 1994, brought suit in federal district court. Farm Bureau refused to defend the claim. In a September 27, 1994 letter to L&O; Farm Bureau denied providing liability coverage on the property. Shortly thereafter, in a November 7, 1994 letter, Farm Bureau stated that the policy exclusions excluded coverage for National's loss; therefore, it was tendering back the defense.
[ ] In February 1996, L&O;brought suit in state court against Farm Bureau seeking declaratory relief directing Farm Bureau to defend its claim and cover National's losses and damages. While the state court action was pending, National and L&O;entered into a stipulated judgment, wherein the parties agreed that National's damages were valued at $408,000. A judgment in that amount was then entered against L&O; L&O;agreed to pay $155,000 of the total judgment, and National agreed it would not collect the remainder of the judgment from L&O; but would seek satisfaction from Farm Bureau.
[ ] On October 24, 1996, National filed a motion to intervene in the state court proceedings and on October 31 became the named plaintiff in the action. On September 19, 1997, Farm Bureau moved for summary judgment and the trial court granted its motion. National appeals.
[ ] On appeal, National raises the following issues:
"1. Whether the loss was excluded as a "business pursuit." "2. Whether, given the terms of the contract between L&O;and National, the parties intended for L&O;to benefit from the insurance policy National had previously purchased on its sunflower seeds, preventing it from seeking recovery from L&O;or Farm Bureau."
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[ ] Our review of a trial court's granting of summary judgment is well settled.
In reviewing a grant or a denial of summary judgment under SDCL 15-5-56(c), we must determine whether the moving party demonstrated the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and showed entitlement to judgment on the merits as a matter of law. The evidence must be viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party and reasonable doubts should be resolved against the moving party. The nonmoving party, however, must present specific facts showing that a genuine, material issue for trial exists. Our task on appeal is to determine only whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied. If there exists any basis which supports the ruling of the trial court, affirmance of a summary judgment is proper.
Millard v. City of Sioux Falls, 1999 SD 18, § 8, 589 NW2d 217, 218 (quoting Walther v. KPKA Meadowlands Ltd. Partner, 1998 SD 78, § 14, 581 NW2d 527, 531 (citations omitted)). In addition, " hen interpreting insurance contracts, we have uniformly held them reviewable as a matter of law under
Page 1 2 3 4 South Dakota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|