Preview:

ROY J. RODEN,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
GENERAL CASUALTY COMPANY
OF WISCONSIN,
Defendant and Appellant ,
and
WAYNE ANDERSON

Defendant.

[2003 SD 130]

South Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from the Circuit Court of
The Seventh Judicial Circuit
Pennington County, South Dakota

Hon. Thomas L. Trimble, Judge


STEVEN C. BEARDSLEY
TED L. MCBRIDE of
Beardsley, Jensen & Von Wald
Rapid City, South Dakota
Attorneys for plaintiff and appellee.

WILLIAM G. BECK of
Woods, Fuller, Shultz & Smith
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Attorneys for defendant and appellant.

Argued on October 8, 2002
Reassigned 7/29/2003
Opinion Filed 10/29/2003

#22236

GILBERTSON, Chief Justice (on reassignment).
[¶ 1.] Roy Roden (Roden) filed a claim against General Casualty for underinsured motorist’s benefits. General Casualty moved for summary judgment, and Roden filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment. The trial court denied General Casualty’s motion and granted Roden partial summary judgment. General Casualty appeals, and we now affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURE
[¶2.] On July 9, 1999, Roden, an employee of Fiber Logic, was standing beside his supervisor’s pickup parked on North Highway 79. At this time, a vehicle operated by Wayne Anderson struck Roden. As a result Roden was hospitalized for six weeks and sustained permanent physical injuries and had extensive medical expenses.
[¶3.] Roden settled his claim against Wayne Anderson and his insurer. Next, Roden filed a claim against his employer’s insurance company, General Casualty, for underinsured motorist benefits. In his claim against General Casualty, Roden contends he was occupying the vehicle and is therefore entitled to underinsured motorist coverage.
[¶4.] Both Roden and General Casualty filed cross Motions for Summary Judgment on the issue of
whether he is covered by the insurance. The trial court denied General Casualty’s Motion for Summary Judgment and granted Roden Partial Summary Judgment on the issue of coverage. General Casualty appeals the following issues:
1.
Whether Roy Roden was occupying the pickup insured by General Casualty for purposes of underinsured motorist coverage.

2.
Whether the trial court erred in granting Roden’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of coverage.



STANDARD OF REVIEW
[¶ 5.] Our standard of review for the grant or denial of summary judgment is well settled. Summary judgment is proper where “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Download 10811078.pdf

South Dakota Law