Opinion ID: 901187
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: [¶ 7.] Our standard of review for the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment is well settled. Holzer v. Dakota Speedway, 2000 SD 65, ¶ 8, 610 N.W.2d 787, 791. Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. SDCL 15-6-56(c). We will affirm only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the legal questions have been correctly decided. Holzer, 2000 SD 65, ¶ 8, 610 N.W.2d at 791 (citing Bego v. Gordon, 407 N.W.2d 801, 804 (S.D.1987)). All reasonable inferences drawn from the facts must be viewed in favor of the non-moving party. Id. (citing Morgan v. Baldwin, 450 N.W.2d 783, 785 (S.D.1990)). The burden is on the moving party to clearly show an absence of any genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Id. (citing Wilson v. Great N. Ry. Co., 83 S.D. 207, 212, 157 N.W.2d 19, 21 (1968)). [¶ 8.] In addition, [w]hen interpreting insurance contracts, we have uniformly held them reviewable as a matter of law under the de novo standard. Opperman v. Heritage Mut. Ins. Co., 1997 SD 85, ¶ 3, 566 N.W.2d 487, 489 (citations omitted). This includes determining whether an insurance contract is ambiguous. Id. (citing Rogers v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 520 N.W.2d 614, 616 (S.D.1994)).