 |
 |
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
the de novo standard." Opperman v. Heritage Mut. Ins. Co., 1997 SD 85, § 3, 566 NW2d 487, 489 (citations omitted). "This includes determining whether an insurance contract is ambiguous." Id. (citing Rogers v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 520 NW2d 614, 616 (SD 1994)).
DECISION
[ ] The "business pursuits exclusion" excluded coverage for National's loss.
[ ] The trial court determined that no ambiguity existed in the policy. The court stated that the rental of a storage bin was a business pursuit; therefore, the policy excluded it from liability coverage. National, however, claims that Farm Bureau should be estopped from denying coverage to L&O;based upon the business pursuits exclusion clause. It specifically argues that Farm Bureau should be estopped from asserting the exclusion, because it did not initially claim the exclusion as the basis for coverage denial. It further argues that, even if Farm Bureau is not estopped from asserting the exclusion as a basis for denial, the business pursuits exclusion clauses in the policies were ambiguous or misleading. We disagree.
[ ] a. Estoppel
[ ] National claims that, because Farm Bureau initially denied providing liability coverage on the property, it should be estopped from later asserting the business pursuits exclusion clauses to deny coverage. We find this argument to be without merit.
[ ] Generally, "where a liability insurer notifies an insured of denial of coverage on a specific basis, the insurer may be estopped from alleging additional bases for noncoverage at a later time." Weekly v. Jameson, 561 NW2d 408, 411 (MichApp 1997) (citation omitted). By denying liability, asserting a defense, or refusing to pay a loss on a specified ground, the insurer
"waives or is estopped to assert other grounds relieving it from liability of which it had full knowledge where insured has acted on its position as announced and suffered resultant detriment, or, as the rule is sometimes more broadly stated, when one specific ground of forfeiture is urged against a policy of insurance, and the validity thereof denied on that ground alone, all other grounds are waived." D.E.M. v. Allickson, 555 NW2d 596, 599 (ND 1996) (citing 46 CJS Insurance §821 (1993) (footnote omitted)). "The crucial elements of estoppel ... are the insurer's stated reliance upon one ground for denying liability without stating additional known grounds, and resulting prejudice to the claimant." Id. at 601.
[ ] National claims, and the record supports its claim, that Farm Bureau failed to inform L&O; until after the commencement of suit, of the business pursuits exclusion clauses as the basis for denying coverage. It argues that Farm Bureau's late assertion of a second ground for denying coverage caused it prejudice. However, National has failed to establish any prejudice or detriment that resulted from L&O;s reliance on Farm Bureau's first ground for excluding coverage. Moreover, it has failed to point to any specific evidence in the record that would support its prejudice claim. We find that a general assertion of "would be" prejudice is insufficient to establish the crucial elements of estoppel. Accordingly, Farm Bureau is not estopped from asserting the business pursuits exclusion as a basis for denying coverage.
[ ] b. Policy ambiguity
[ ] National further claims that, even if Farm Bureau is not estopped from asserting the business pursuits exclusion clauses as a defense, the insurance policy should be construed against Farm Bureau. It argues that the policy language is ambiguous and confusing, thus, the insurer should provide the insured the maximum amount of coverage. Again,
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.
|
|