Court Opinion

ID: 9670685
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:24:13.226189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:05.937391
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring specially).
I agree with the result because Husband’s damages for loss of consortium are derivative in nature. Husband’s damages result from the negligent injury to his spouse and are dependent thereon. Selchert v. Lien, 371 *618N.W.2d 791 (S.D.1985). If Husband were to prevail in his argument, the per person coverage for damages as a result of bodily injury to one spouse would be effectively doubled. This would be contrary to South Dakota law as expressed in Clark v. Regent Ins. Co., 270 N.W.2d 26, 29 (S.D.1978). Kremer v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 501 N.W.2d 765, 768 (S.D.1993).
“The purpose of the uninsured motorist statutes is to provide the same insurance protection to the insured party who is injured by an uninsured or unknown motorist that would have been available to him had he been injured as a result of the negligence of a motorist covered by the minimum amount of liability insurance.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Clark, 270 N.W.2d at 29.
Therefore, I agree with the result of this case because it provides the same insurance protection that would have been available as a result of the negligence of a motorist covered by the amount of liability insurance. Clark, 270 N.W.2d at 29.