Legal Opinion · Dissent

Farmland Insurance Companies of Des Moines v. Heitmann

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided April 7, 1993No. 17854Published

1DissentMiller, Chief Justice

It is my view that Heitmann’s policy is not inconsistent or contradictory to the statutes. Rather, the policy is more favorable to Heitmann in this particular provision. My research has disclosed no case in which this Court has held that an explicit provision of a policy which is more favorable to the insured than an incorporated statutory provision, is “in conflict with, or repugnant to, statutory provisions[.]” I dissent from the majority writing which in effect does so now.

I agree with the majority in its adoption of the trial court’s holding which cited Alexander v. Home Ins. Co., 53 S.D.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Clark v. Regent Insurance Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Broton v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
  3. Prokop v. North Star Mutual Insurance Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1990
  4. Epiphany Roman Catholic Church v. German Ins.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1902
  5. Alexander v. Home Ins.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1928

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API