Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Phen v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co.

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided November 12, 2003No. NonePublished

1ConcurrenceZinter, Justice

[¶ 28.] I agree that Westphal controls this appeal, and Westphal invalidates Progressive’s policy clauses that prohibit the stacking of coverage. I concur in result only because I part company with the Court’s conclusion that our decisions since Westphal continue to reflect a public policy against “anti-stacking” exclusions in uninsured motorist insurance policies. In my view, Progressive correctly points out that this Court’s more recent decisions reflect a public policy permitting such exclusions as long as the statutorily required minimum uninsured motorist coverage is provided.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railway Co. v. VoigtSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
  2. Bartron v. Codington CountySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Clark v. Regent Insurance Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Brown v. Snohomish County Physicians Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1993
  5. Nickerson v. American States InsuranceSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2000

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API