Legal Opinion · Dissent

Opperman v. Heritage Mutual Insurance Co.

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided July 16, 1997No. NonePublished

1DissentGilbertson, Justice

[¶ 15] I respectfully dissent from the majority and would hold that the front-end loader was being warehoused as defined by Heritage’s policy.

[¶ 16] The majority fails to explain away the exceptions listed under Paragraph o. of the policy. The two relevant exceptions are:(1) Vehicles or self-propelled machines or autos you manufacture, process or warehouse; or(2) Vehicles or self-propelled machines, other than autos, you hold for sale;

(emphasis added).

[¶ 17] From its own policy, it is clear that Heritage does not term warehousing as storing vehicles or self-propelled machines for sale/resale.…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. ElliotSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Rogers v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Olson v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1996
  4. State v. GehrkeSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Aberdeen Ed. Ass'n v. Aberdeen Bd. of Ed., Ind. Sch. D.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1974

5 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