# Isaac v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

> South Dakota Supreme Court · September 14, 1994 · 522 N.W.2d 752

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9687614

## Case

- **Full name:** Edel ISAAC, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** South Dakota Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 14, 1994
- **Citations:** 522 N.W.2d 752; 1994 S.D. LEXIS 152; 1994 WL 502095
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Amundson
- **Judges:** Sabers, Miller, Wuest, Henderson, Amundson, Konenkamp
- **Cited by:** 71 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9687614

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a jury question was created by plaintiff’s bad faith claim even though there was no South Dakota law on point as to whether a worker’s compensation set-off provision in the insurance policy was valid or void
- holding that a policy provision purporting to reduce underinsured motorist coverage by workers' compensation benefits was void as a matter of public policy
- holding that a set-off provision in the policy’s uninsured motorist coverage was void and unenforceable as against public policy
- observing that the Legislature is the final arbiter of public policy
- noting that the Legislature is the final arbiter of public policy

## Opinion text

AMUNDSON, Justice
(concurring specially).
State Farm initially took the position that Isaac had no coverage under her policy in regards to the Bordeaux accident. She was advised to look to Bordeaux for any recovery *765 notwithstanding the mandatory uninsured motorist coverage contained in the policy she purchased from State Farm.
After taking the no coverage position, State Farm when contacted by Isaac’s attorney, persisted in attempting to totally deny the claim. This position is shown in Exhibit 14, an internal memorandum from Karla Ryno, a State Farm claims representative, to her supervisor which stated in part:
As per our conversation, I was attempting to feel Attorney DeGeest out regarding the denial of the claim based upon workmen’s compensation.
Isaac’s expert gave an opinion in front of the jury that there was no reasonable basis for a denial of coverage by State Farm and doing same constituted bad faith in this matter. State Farm’s expert testified that the no coverage position taken by State Farm in this case was wrong and a strong indicia of bad faith. However, the expert further opined that when reviewing the total picture of how the claim was processed, State Farm’s conduct in this case did not constitute bad faith handling of Isaac’s claim. Based on these conflicting opinions, the jury as the fact-finder had to decide the weight, if any, to be given to these expert opinions. Century 21 Associated Realty v. Hoffman, 503 N.W.2d 861 (S.D.1993).
The jury subsequently returned a general verdict for Isaac. When such a verdict is returned and appealed, the Supreme Court will view the evidence in a light most favorable to sustain the jury’s verdict. Brandriet v. Norwest Bank of South Dakota, N.A., 499 N.W.2d 613 (S.D.1993). Moreover, if the verdict is susceptible to more than one construction, the Supreme Court applies the construction which upholds the verdict. BankWest, Inc. v. Valentine, 451 N.W.2d 732 (S.D.1990). Applying such precedent to this case, it is obvious that the jury could have found that State Farm’s total denial of coverage initially constituted bad faith on its part. Having so found, it is immaterial to the ease whether or not State Farm believed its policy provided for a reduction of coverage. State Farm’s set-off or reduction of coverage position came after the total denial position. Therefore, I agree that the giving of Instruction No. 14 was error, but for the reasons set forth above, it was not prejudicial to this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9687614. Public record. Not legal advice.