Court Opinion

ID: 9742732
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:19:16.726152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:35.734214
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent. The logical and sound conclusion of law flowing from the strong findings of fact in favor of the insured, which the majority opinion deems is not clearly erroneous, is that the insurer’s refusal to pay was unreasonable and/or vexatious. Insurer is trying to obscure its liability by hiding behind the skirts of its agent’s testimony — which has been totally repudiated. Although the principle is set in the reverse order, the principle is still the same: “A well-established rule is that the findings of fact must support the conclusions of law.” Hartpence v. Youth Forestry Camp, 325 N.W.2d 292, 297 (S.D.1982). Here, the trial *219court entered the correct findings of fact and in this, I agree with the majority. I disagree with the majority, however, in its conclusion that the trial court entered improper conclusions of law from the solid findings of fact. The conclusions of law, drawn by the trial court, are not clearly erroneous for they are a natural extension of legal thought and continuity flowing from the findings of fact. The trial court made a proper diagnosis (findings of fact) and produced a proper prescription for the ills (conclusions of law). The law-finding supports the fact-finding and a citation to Taylor and Pope in the majority opinion does not vault the majority opinion’s exercise of judicial function over the exercise of the trial court’s judicial function. Therefore, I would affirm.