Court Opinion

ID: 9719988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:12:04.139032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:12.053805
License: Public Domain

HANSON, J.
(dissenting).
I would affirm.
If this action is considered to be one for rescission, as the majority opinion indicates, there is no reason to remand it to the trial court “with directions to determine the question of fact as to whether plaintiff rescinded the contracts of insurance promptly after obtaining knowledge of the fraud”. As Judge Rentto pointed out in the case of Beatty v. Depue, 78 S.D. 395, 103 N.W.2d 187,
“Our rule concerning diligence in seeking rescission is spelled out in SDC 10.0804. That section states as follows:
“ ‘Rescission, when not effected by consent can be accbmplished only by the use, on the part of the party rescinding, of reasonable diligence to comply with the following rules:
“ ‘(1) He must rescind promptly, upon discovering the facts which entitle him to rescind, if he is free from duress, undue influence, or disability, and is aware of his right to rescind.’ Before one is under any duty to act he must have discovered the facts entitling him to rescind and be aware of his right to rescind. Bancroft v. Woodward, 183 Cal. 99, 190 P. 445; McCray v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., 12 Cal.App.2d 537, 55 P.2d 1234; *632Gedstad v. Ellichman, 124 Cal.App.2d 831, 269 P.2d 661. Or putting it another way, our statute reads that the mistaken party ‘must rescind promptly upon discovering the facts which entitle him to rescind, if he * * * is aware of 'his right to rescind.’ ”
The undisputed evidence in this case clearly shows that plaintiff rescinded the policies of insurance promptly upon discovering the facts which entitled him to rescind and after he became aware of his right to rescind in accord-dance with SDC 10.0804 as interpreted by this court in the case of Beatty v. Depue, supra, and we should so hold as a matter of law.
Also,, under the majority view it would seem more equitable to affirm and remand this action with directions rather than to reverse with directions, as the prevailing party is now obligated to pay the costs of appeal.