Court Opinion

ID: 9658097
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:46:30.689604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:51.471824
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring in part and concurring in result in part).
1. I agree that it was prejudicial error for the trial court to reject Bollinger’s timely pleadings and affidavit.
2. I also agree that Tri-State has a duty to defend under these circumstances.
3. Whether or not Tri-State will be determined to have a duty to pay will depend on whether the result (the broken ankle) was reasonably intended or expected “by the insured” under all the facts and circumstances. This presents a genuine issue of material fact, a jury question, and it was improper and premature for the trial court to rule otherwise now.
4. Whether Tri-State’s refusal to defend and refusal to pay is vexatious or without reasonable cause under SDCL 58-12-3 is a question of fact, premature, and *703we should refrain from expressing an opinion thereon.
AMUNDSON, J., joins this special writing on part 3 only.