Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Vera Martin, who lived in South Dakota, worked at an American Colloid plant in Wyoming. After suffering a work-related injury at the Wyoming plant, Martin received Wyoming workers' compensation benefits. Martin then filed a claim for South Dakota workers' compensation benefits. The South Dakota Department of Labor dismissed her claim for lack of jurisdiction. The circuit court affirmed. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that (1) while Martin was a South Dakota resident throughout her employment with American Colloid, that fact was not alone sufficient to create the substantial connection necessary to conclude that South Dakota was the place of the employment relationship; and (2) because South Dakota was not the place of the employment relationship, the department did not have jurisdiction over this matter.

Denise Estes filed suit against Dr. David Lonbaken, a podiatrist, for medical malpractice, alleging that Lonbaken negligently treated a neuroma on her foot and seeking damages. Estes filed the complaint in Buffalo County. Lonbaken moved to change venue to Hughes County, claiming Hughes County was the proper venue because Estes' surgery and follow-up treatment took place in Hughes County. The trial court granted Lonbaken's motion to change venue. At issue on appeal was whether Buffalo County was a proper venue for the action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the facts creating the necessity for bringing the action took place exclusively in Hughes County, and as such, the proper venue was Hughes County.

After self-insured Employer filed for bankruptcy, it continued to take payroll deductions from Employees for medical coverage but stopped paying the provider hospital for the covered charges. The hospital then directly billed Employees for services that should have been paid by Employer. Employees filed suit to stop the hospital's attempts to collect payment, seeking relief under the theories of declaratory judgment, injunction, breach of contract, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and bad faith breach of contract. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the hospital on all of Employees' claims. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Employees had standing as third party beneficiaries to enforce the provisions of the hospital agreement and payer agreement; and (2) Employees were not obligated to pay for covered medical services under the agreements. Remanded.

Tabitha Pourier was seriously injured in an automobile accident and suffered damages in excess of $250,000. After receiving $25,000 from the tortfeasor's liaility carrier and $100,000 in underinsured motorist coverage from her primary insurer, Pourier sought an additional $100,000 in underinsured coverage from her excess carrier, De Smet Insurance Company. De Smet denied coverage, asserting that an exclusion in the policy precluded coverage. On cross motions for summary judgment, the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of De Smet, ruling that the policy exclusion was valid and enforceable. At issue on appeal was whether De Smet's owned-but-not-insured exclusion was void as against public policy because it prohibited Pourier, who was riding in a vehicle owned by her but insured by another company, from recovering for uncompensated damages by De Smet as the secondary insurer. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the policy exclusion was not against public policy.

Rose Pray fell and was injured when a rottweiler broke loose from its owner and dashed across the street toward her. Pray brought an action for damages against the dog owner and the City. As against the City, Pray asserted that it knew the dog was dangerous and failed to enforce its vicious animal ordinance. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the City, ruling that, under Tipton v. Town of Tabor, the city owed Pray no special duty and, therefore, owed no duty to control the conduct of third persons. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court erred in ruling that Pray needed to prove each of the four Tipton elements to establish that a special duty existed, but (2) as a matter of law, Pray did not meet the legal requirements to show such a duty.

Pizza Hut hired Norman Williams, who was at the time on parole for a felony conviction involving a gang-related incident of mutual combat resulting in serious injury. While working at the restaurant, Williams allegedly attacked David Iverson. Iverson filed suit against Williams and Pizza Hut, asserting (1) vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior, (2) negligent hiring, (3) breach of duty to control an employee, and (4) negligent supervision. The circuit court granted summary judgment in Pizza Hut's favor on all four theories of liability. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that summary judgment was proper where (1) Pizza Hut's agency relationship was immaterial to Williams's tort, (2) because at the time Williams was hired he was only to have incidental contact with the public, Pizza Hut did not have a duty to inquire further into Williams's background, (3) because Iverson did not satisfy the foreseeability prong, he failed to show that Pizza Hut had a duty to control Williams, and (4) given the facts and circumstances, it was not sufficiently foreseeable to impose a duty on Pizza Hut to prevent Iverson from meeting with Williams at the restaurant.

Appellees Floyd Demaray and James Hagemann were sued for repeated tortious activity in discharging of pollutants into lakes and streams of a nearby property. Appellees, who owned separate but identical insurance policies with De Smet Farm Mutual Insurance, notified De Smet of the lawsuit. De Smet declined defense of the suit, asserting it owed no duty to defend under the insurance contract. Appellees obtained their own defense counsel and defended the matter through trial, where a jury ruled in their favor. Appellees then sued De Smet, alleging that the company breached its duty to defend them in the previous lawsuit and seeking indemnification for all costs and fees incurred as a result. The trial court granted Appellees' motion for summary judgment, holding that De Smet owed Appellees a duty to defend because the alleged claim, if true, fell within policy coverage. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the policy language was unambiguous and the complaint asserted no claim that would arguably invoke coverage. Remanded with directions to grant summary judgment for De Smet.

Jeremy Lloyd was the general manager at a CiCi's Pizza in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, which was owned by Dakota Land Pizza, and was temporarily managing two CiCi's Pizzas in Omaha, Nebraska, which were owned by Byrne Brands. While traveling between Omaha and Sioux Falls on a trip that was not assigned as part of Lloyd's employment duties, Lloyd was involved in a rollover accident. Lloyd filed a workers' compensation claim against defendants Dakota Land and Byrne Brands. The Department of Labor granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, determining that no genuine issue of material fact demonstrated that Lloyd's injuries arose out of or in the course of his employment. The circuit court affirmed. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Lloyd's claim did not satisfy the "arising out of" requirement for a workers' compensation claim because it failed to demonstrate that a causal connection existed between the injury and the employment.

Plaintiffs Terry and Susan Brown purchased land adjacent to Defendant James Hanson. The neighbors signed a well-and-road easement agreement, which was recorded with the County Register of Deeds. Believing that the Browns had violated the terms of the agreement, Mr. Hanson filed a letter "rescinding" the agreement with the Register of Deeds. The Browns sued Mr. Hanson, and the trial court ruled that a rescission was not the appropriate remedy for a breach of the easement. Mr. Hanson appealed that decision, and the appellate and Supreme Courts affirmed it. The case was remanded back to the trial court for other issues, one of which was that the Browns alleged Mr. Hanson slandered their title by filing his "rescission" letter with the Register of Deeds. Furthermore, that letter created a cloud on the Browns' title, which the Browns claimed interfered with their contract to sell the property to a third party. The trial court entered a judgment in the Browns' favor. Mr. Hanson again appealed. The Supreme Court found that the trial court did not err in finding Mr. Hanson slandered the Browns' title and tortiously interfered with their sales contract. The Court remanded the case for the redetermination of attorney's fees.

Plaintiff Gregory Carmon filed suit against Defendant Brian Rose, alleging conspiracy to defraud. Plaintiffâs suit claimed that Defendant and several others defrauded him in an oil and gas investment scheme. The summons and complaint were served by substitute service to Defendantâs wife who lived in Kentucky. When no responsive pleadings were filed, Plaintiff moved for a default judgment, which was granted. Defendant subsequently filed a motion to set aside the judgment, claiming the substitute service was invalid because he had not lived in the Kentucky home since separating from his wife in 2008. The trial court denied Defendantâs motion, and Defendant appealed. The evidence presented to the trial court showed that the Defendant continued to use the Kentucky address to conduct business after separating from his wife. As late as 2010, a vehicle registered to Defendant was photographed outside the Kentucky home. The Supreme Court concluded that the weight of the evidence supported the trial courtâs conclusion that substitute service was valid, and affirmed the lower courtâs decision.