Court Opinion

ID: 9700815
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:50:07.701889+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:14.747281
License: Public Domain

WUEST, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
In my opinion, the trial court was correct in granting Valley National Bank’s motion to dismiss; therefore, I dissent to that portion of the opinion that holds otherwise.
Whether the language of a contract is ambiguous is a question of law. American State Bank v. Adkins, 458 N.W.2d 807, 809 (S.D.1990) (citing Enchanted World Doll Museum v. Buskohl, 398 N.W.2d 149, 151 (S.D.1986)). Questions of law are fully reviewable de novo by this court. Permann v. Department of Labor, 411 N.W.2d 113, 116 (S.D.1987). “Unless the language is ambiguous or a different intent is manifested, the language in a contract is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning.” American State Bank, 458 N.W.2d at 809 (citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 202(3) (1981)). There is a presumption that the writing accurately reflects the intent of the parties. Enchanted Museum, 398 N.W.2d at 152.
The Borchgrevinks and Schlossers provided for insurance of their respective interests in paragraph six of the contract for deed. Although the Borchgrevinks were responsible for maintaining insurance on the dwelling during their life tenancy, the contract specifically provided they were to receive any proceeds.
Sellers, during their lifetimes or during their continued residential use of said dwelling, shall be entitled to receive insurance benefits arising from insured loss or destruction payable under Sellers’ property insurance policyf.]
Therefore, even if the Borchgrevinks had purchased insurance, by the clear terms of *421the contract they, not the Sehlossers, would have received the policy benefits.
There was no contractual duty for the Borchgrevinks to replace the destroyed dwelling with any insurance proceeds. Had they done so, they would have had no right to live in the replacement house. Under paragraph four of the contract, their right live in the house:
[I]s restricted to the present dwelling any improvements or additions thereto made by Sellers’ or either of them, and does not extend to any replacement dwelling or structures (in the event of the destruction of the present dwelling)[.]
Additionally, paragraph six of the contract provided that the Sehlossers could insure their own interest in the dwelling:
Nothing herein shall preclude nor prevent Buyers from obtaining and maintaining such property insurance on the dwelling as Buyers may elect to obtain.
The Sehlossers did not obtain insurance on their interest in the dwelling.
The contract is clear and unambiguous. Where the contract is clear, it should be enforced as written.
The rights of the parties may not be resolved by what they might have included in a contract nor by what the court may have regarded as abstract fairness; in other words, a court cannot make a contract for the parties that they did not make for themselves nor impose upon a party an obligation not assumed.
Roben v. Schlottman, 77 S.D. 184, 190-91, 88 N.W.2d 205, 208 (1958). Where the parties had the freedom to contract and they contracted to allocate the risk of loss, they must abide by their contract. Accord, Azcon Const Co. v. Golden Hills Resort, 498 N.W.2d 630, 634 (S.D.1993); L.R. Foy Constr. Co. v. Syearfish Sch. Dist., 341 N.W.2d 383, 388 (S.D.1983) (Henderson, J. specially concurring). Each party contracted to insure its own interest, neither party obtained insurance and now each party must bear the consequences.
MILLER, C.J., joins this special writing.