Legal Opinion · Dissent

O'Neill v. Blue Cross of Western Iowa & South Dakota

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided April 17, 1985No. 14591, 14593Published

1DissentHenderson, Justice

This case constitutes nothing more than an action in contract on an insurance policy.* If I, or others of like mental ilk, followed the majority opinion’s powers of reasoning, a person could obtain coverage and impregnate a theoretically infinite number of women and obtain coverage for each birth. Believing that such a result, as begot by the majority’s platform of legal thought, could scarcely be determined by the intent or reasonable expectation of either party to this contract, I dissent. I further dissent because the insurance company either owes an obligation to O’Neill under the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Potter v. BennettAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API