Wheeler v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Co. of Nebraska
824 N.W.2d 102
S.D.2012Background
- Megan Wheeler was injured by an uninsured drunk driver while driving a 2005 Honda Accord owned by her parents.
- Megan had received $100,000 UM benefits under her father Daniel’s Progressive policy for the same accident; her damages exceeded this amount.
- Megan sought uninsured motorist benefits under her mother Maria’s Farmers policy, which did not insure the Honda but did cover Megan as an insured.
- Farmers denied Megan’s claim based on an owned-but-not-insured exclusion stating no coverage for an insured using a vehicle owned by the insured but not insured under the policy.
- The Honda was owned by Maria (the insured under Farmers) but not insured under Farmers, though Megan qualified as an insured under Farmers.
- The circuit court granted Farmers summary judgment, relying on Pourier and Gloe to treat uninsured and underinsured motorist statutes interchangeably.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the owned-but-not-insured exclusion is void under SDCL 58-11-9 for uninsured motorist coverage. | Megan argues exclusion is void and she is entitled to UM benefits under Farmers. | Farmers argues exclusion is valid under Pourier/Gloe line of cases. | Void; exclusion invalid for uninsured motorist coverage. |
| Whether SDCL 58-11-9 and 58-11-9.5 are interchangeable for purposes of this case. | Megan contends the statutes are distinct and must be interpreted separately. | Farmers contends case-law interchangeability applies. | Statutes are distinct; interchangeability rejected for uninsured context. |
| Whether Gloe’s statements about interchangeability were properly limited to its context. | Megan argues Gloe supported interchangeable interpretation for uninsured and underinsured contexts. | Farmers relies on Gloe to support interchangeability. | Gloe limited to protection scope, not broad interchangeability. |
| Whether the Legislature intended to permit exclusions in uninsured motorist coverage through SDCL 58-11-9.5 (underinsured context) and not in SDCL 58-11-9 (uninsured context). | Megan asserts no such exclusion is permitted in uninsured context by statute. | Farmers asserts permitted exclusions similarly to underinsured context. | Legislation does not permit such exclusion in uninsured motorist coverage. |
Key Cases Cited
- De Smet Ins. Co. of S.D. v. Pourier, 802 N.W.2d 447 (2011 S.D. 47) (validity of owned-but-not-insured exclusion under underinsured motorist statute)
- Gloe v. Iowa Mut. Ins. Co., 694 N.W.2d 238 (2005 S.D. 29) (interchangeability statements limited to coverage protection issue)
- Phen v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 672 N.W.2d 52 (2003 S.D. 133) (public policy and limits on uninsured/underinsured motorist exclusions; stacking context)
- Westphal v. Amco Ins. Co., 209 N.W.2d 555 (1973 S.D.) (uninsured motorist exclusion void as against public policy)