Legal Opinion

Hein v. Acuity

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided April 18, 2007No. 23903PublishedCited by 47 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KONENKAMP, Justice.

[¶ 1.] In a workers’ compensation case, can a claimant maintain a separate action for bad faith solely on the basis of unreasonable conduct by the employer’s insurer, absent proof of any wrongful denial of benefits? After receiving benefits for a job-related injury, the claimant sought rehabilitation benefits and the insurer denied her request. The claimant petitioned pro se for benefits with the Department of Labor and the insurer counterclaimed seeking reimbursement of all benefits previously paid. When the claimant hired an attorney, the insurer withdrew its…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Gruenberg v. Aetna InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Anderson v. Continental InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Travelers Insurance Co. v. SavioSupreme Court of Colorado · 1985
  4. Union Bankers Insurance Co. v. SheltonTexas Supreme Court · 1994
  5. O'Donnell Ex Rel. Mitro v. Allstate Insurance Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999

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

3Cited by47 opinions

  1. Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad v. AcuitySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2009
  2. Bertelsen v. Allstate Insurance Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2011
  3. Bertelsen v. Allstate Insurance Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2013
  4. Harvieux v. Progressive N. Ins. Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2018
  5. Zochert v. Protective Life Ins. Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2018

42 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