Court Opinion

ID: 9514960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:52:46.140908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:23.281279
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
[¶ 30.] I concur in all respects except as to paragraph 22, to which I dissent.
[¶ 31.] Even though Gilchrist did not amend his complaint to allege facts that occurred after February 22, 1995, facts occurring after that date were certainly relevant and admissible to show what Trail King knew prior to that date. Furthermore, we have consistently stated that in order to prove bad faith, it must be shown that there was 1) no reasonable basis for denial of policy benefits and 2) knowledge or reckless disregard of the lack of a reasonable basis. Walz v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., 1996 SD 135 ¶ 7, 556 N.W.2d 68, 70; Isaac v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance Co., 522 N.W.2d 752, 759 (S.D.1994). Facts occurring after February 22 arguably show that Trail King persisted in a course of disregard for the opinions of doctors and psychiatrists as to Gilchrist’s disability. That evidence is specifically relevant to the question of whether Trail King had a reasonable basis upon which to deny coverage. Therefore, I would reverse on Issue l.b.
[¶ 32.] I do agree that the trial court may cure this defect by permitting an amendment to Gilchrist’s pleadings, if any, on retrial.