6 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1972–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Dakota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Eide v. Southern Surety Co.green2 sentences2018Co ., 55 S.D. 405 , 226 N.W. 555 , 556 (1929). [¶31.] Here, Ivan cannot prevail on his claim that Protective breached the implied contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing by failing to inform him of the coverages for which he qualified. 2018Co ., 55 S.D. 405 , 226 N.W. 555 , 556 (1929). [¶31.] Here, Ivan cannot prevail on his claim that Protective breached the implied contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing by failing to inform him of the coverages for which he qualified. | 1 | 2 |
Kaiser Trucking, Inc. v. Liberty Mutualgreen2 sentences2026See Kaiser I, 2022 S.D. 64, ¶ 28 , 981 N.W.2d at 656 . 2026See Kaiser I, 2022 S.D. 64, ¶ 28 , 981 N.W.2d at 656 . | 1 | 1 |
American Family Insurance Group v. Howegreen1 sentence2007Group v. Howe, 584 F.Supp. 369, 371 (D.S.D.1984) (stating that the “operation of [the] omnibus clause creates liability insurance in favor of persons other than the named insured to the same degree as the named insured.”). [¶ 21.] Northland also raises the following issues in this appeal: Whether Zurich may rely on an exclusion in its policy as grounds for avoiding its contractual obligations to its insured when it failed to notify Loebs of this policy defense. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Walz v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2003Id. [¶ 25.] The simple fact that Progressive asserted a policy defense is insufficient grounds upon which to find a genuine issue of material fact as to whether it acted in bad faith. 2003Id. [¶ 25.] The simple fact that Progressive asserted a policy defense is insufficient grounds upon which to find a genuine issue of material fact as to whether it acted in bad faith. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Klein v. Auto Owners Insurance
green
1 sentence1972Co. v. Cox, supra note 1 , and 44 Am.Jur.2d, Insurance, § 1365. [3] Klein v. Auto Owners Insurance Co., D.C.Minn., 39 F.R.D. 24 ; Weiner v. Aetna Ins. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
State Securities Co. v. Federated Mutual Implement & Hardware Insurance
neutral
2 sentences1972Neb.) 204 F.Supp. 207 , where policy contained increase hazard clause as the policy at bar; Orient Ins. 1972Co. (D.C.Neb.) 204 F.Supp. 207 , where policy contained increase hazard clause as the policy at bar; Orient Ins. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.