Phen v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co.
South Dakota Supreme Court
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
- Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railway Co. v. VoigtSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Bartron v. Codington CountySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1942
- Clark v. Regent Insurance Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1978
- Brown v. Snohomish County Physicians Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1993
- Nickerson v. American States InsuranceSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2000
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.