*1 injustice. appeal. only alleges attorneys ifest Id. at 687. SDCL 23A-27- He that his “Surprise or disappointment 11. at the se- erroneously him told that he could still verity of a sentence does not alone consti- appeal.2 The thoroughly trial court grounds guilty for the withdrawal of a tute rights formed Boykin Cobb his and con- sentencing. plea after Cases of dis- waiving cluded he knowing- that was them expectations, appointed but unfounded ly, voluntarily intelligently. however, distinguished must from rea- The trial court did not abuse its discre- arising expectations from the sonable determining injus- tion that no “manifest government or statements from the court.” justify allowing tice” existed to Cobb to (citations omitted). at 688. For Id. exam- guilty plea sentencing. withdraw his after ple, judge in Lohnes the trial assured the We affirm. pled guilty defendant that if he he would Instead, imprisonment. life not receive MILLER, C.J., WUEST, judge to trial sentenced the defendant HENDERSON, SABERS, and prison. years This Court reversed the AMUNDSON, JJ., participating. sentence. question only for this Court is

whether the trial court abused its discre determining injus no

tion that “manifest justify allowing

tice” existed which would guilty plea. to withdraw his Cobb

Cobb injustice

claims there was manifest because thought pleading guilty give

he would parole possibility him the and because he COMPANY, CIMARRON INSURANCE thought appeal still to he would be able Corporation, a Kansas Plaintiff pretrial court’s orders. trial Appellee, transcript excerpt includ- Because above, is clear claim that he ed Cobb’s get thought parole out on is with- he would CROYLE, Allen and Allen Paul Sr. Although do support. out we not know Jr., Croyle, Defendants, Paul attorneys his told him—we do know what judge specifically explained that the trial guilty plea result in a sen- that a would Nonanna A. Defendant prison parole. life in tence of without Appellant. also claims he he would Cobb believed Nos. 17422. appeal pre- trial court’s still be able to Supreme Court of South Dakota. though pled guilty.1 he trial orders even fact, findings do there are no we Since May Considered on Briefs 1991. court concluded that not know if the trial Reassigned Oct. 1991. However, appeal. believed he could Cobb allega- if the trial court viewed even Decided Jan. Cobb, light tions in a most favorable reasonably con- judicial mind could have injustice” no “manifest existed.

cluded that allege that State or the trial does

Cobb told him that he would still be able

court guilty Cobb received pleads con- before us to determine whether a defendant or nolo 1. When right also waives the as tendere the defendant assistance of counsel. Ineffective ineffective Jordan, appeal any pretrial rulings. preferably claims are han sistance of counsel (S.D.1978). corpus rather than direct dled in habeas actions Jett, (S.D. appeals. N.W.2d 741 See State v. allege specifically as- did not ineffective 2. Cobb 1991). apparently believes of counsel. State sistance record do not have a sufficient he did. We *2 Costello, Porter, Hill, May of

William A. Bushnell, Rapid Heisterkamp City, & for plaintiff appellee. Ellison, Rapid City,

Bruce H. for defen- A. appellant Croyle. dant Nonanna (on MILLER, reassign- Justice Chief ment). dealing appeal

This is an the validi- ty of a exclusion” an “household automo- bile insurance The trial held court that the is invalid and unenforce- exclusion up mandatorily for limits able claims required by responsi- state’s financial bility law, valid and for but enforceable thereof, irrespective claims in excess policy limits. We affirm.

FACTS 9, 1988, orOn November Allen about (Croyle) driving Paul Jr. was his Rapid City, father’s 1973 Oldsmobile Dakota, he collided when with a ve- by Croyle hicle Jeanette St. Peter. driven accompanied in the vehicle his sis- collision, ter a result of the Nonanna. As per- St. Peter died1 and Nonanna suffered injuries. sonal accident, At the time of the the automo- by Cimarron was insured bile (Cimarron) policy pur- under a Company (insured). by Croyle’s chased father The coverage policy $300,000. Additionally, in the amount of policy provided both uninsured and coverage, each the amount underinsured $300,000. also contained a exclusion, provide liability do not which stated: “We any person bodily injury you any family or member.” The person as a relat- defined a member blood, adoption, marriage, ed who is Like- resident of the insured’s household. wise, portion the underinsured subsequently ular homicide. Croyle of vehic- convicted found stated an “underinsured motor vehicle” insured did not have a reasonable expectation coverage. does not include vehicle “owned regular furnished or available for the use appealed Nonanna to this court and Ci- any family of you or member.” cross-appealed. marron We consider the following issues: against Nonanna filed a claim upon negligence. her based brother’s Ci- *3 I. Croyle that advised insurance cov-

marron erage provided under in- would not be WHETHER CIMARRON’S HOUSE- however, agreed policy; sured’s Cimarron HOLD EXCLUSION IS VOID CON- AS reserving rights Croyle, any to defend 32-35-113, TRARY TO SDCL SDCL 32- poli- the deny coverage upon to based had POLICY, AND, 35-70 AND IF PUBLIC cy’s exclusions. SO, WHETHER IT IS VOID IN ITS EN- THE TIRETY OR ONLY AS TO STATU- Subsequently, filed a declarato- TORY MINIMUM COVERAGE. Nonanna, ry against judgment action and After the insured. amended II. answered, complaint cross-motions for was summary judgment were filed. Nonanna WHETHER NONANNA IS CROYLE alleged the household exclusion contained ENTITLED TO UNDERINSURED liability portion policy in of the TO BENEFITS PURSUANT THE CI- Leg- rendered void the South Dakota when POLICY. MARRON adopted mandatory financial re- islature sponsibility law for all vehicles. See SDCL I.

32-35-113 SDCL 32-35-70. Cimarron 1986, Prior to South Dakota’s Finan argued the household exclusion was not Responsibility required proof cial Law or, alternative, only in the void void it was only after responsibility financial a motor mandatory to extent of the limits re- in ist was involved an accident or convicted quired responsibility financial law motor of certain vehicle offenses. See ($25,000). 32-35-43; v. Farm SDCL Novak State Co., (S.D. Mut. Ins. 293 N.W.2d 452 Auto. The trial court held the household 1980). However, 1986, in the South Dakota portion liability contained in the exclusion Legislature mandated that all owners and unenforceable was void proof operators of motor vehicles maintain up $25,000 coverage required by to responsibility for future events. of financial However, the trial court held that Pursuant to SDCL 32-35-113: and en- the household exclusion was valid for ex- forceable the amount or of a motor ve- Every driver owner $25,000 ceeding statutory minimum. force hicle at all times maintain in shall words, held responsibili- the trial court Cimar- forms financial other one of the $25,- injuries up to ty ron liable Nonanna’s on motor vehicle one of following methods: 000. (1) Having in on the motor ve- force judgment, entry summary Prior to owner’s hicle an argument an additional Nonanna submitted in as surance § 32-35-70[.]2 the household exclusion to the effect that provides, pertinent part: in 32-35-70 SDCL expecta- contrary to the “reasonable liability insurance An court owner’s of the insured. trial heard tions” named there- ... shall insure the testimony on that issue. After limited pjerson insured, using person any other testimony, hearing the and without ac- any vehicle or vehicles with reason- insured knowledging applicability implied permission of the doctrine, express or expectations the trial court able securities, (3) insurance, money or deposit of or cate of future finan- addition 32-35-113(2), (3), by (1) may responsibility be demonstrated cial having self-insurance. force, (2) maintaining a certifi- a bond in 884 jurisdictions hold majority of insured, the lia- The vast against loss from

named exclusions invalid under damages aris- such bility imposed law See, e.g., Ar maintenance, statutory schemes. ownership, similar ing out of the Farm Mutual Automo ceneaux v. State use of the vehicle vehicles ... Ins. bile Ariz. 550 P.2d 87 113 of interests subject to limits exclusive v. State Farm Mutual Stevens (1976); costs, respect each insured Co., Ariz.App. Automobile Ins. vehicle, twenty-five thousand as follows: Young, DeWitt v. (1974); bodily injury to or P.2d dollars because of (1981); Bishop P.2d 478 Kan. person any one accident death of one (Ky. Allstate 623 S.W.2d 865 person, and, subject the limit for one Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. State 1981); bodily fifty thousand dollars because Traycik, Mich.App. persons or more injury to or death of two Co. v. Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. (1979); accident, twenty-five one Sivey, 404 Mich. (1978); injury to or dollars because of thousand *4 Royle, Ins. Co. v. Transamerica 202 Mont. property of others in of destruction Estate Neal v. 173, (1983); P.2d 820 656 of one accident[.] Exch., Ins. 348, 566 P.2d Farmers 93 Nev. Novak, acknowledged willing- our In we (1977); Estep Farm Mut. Auto. v. State 81 where void household exclusions ness to (1985); Ins. 703 P.2d 882 103 N.M. liability insurance maintaining automobile Anzalone, 119 Misc.2d Allstate Ins. Co. v. by mandato- mandated statute: “[T]he (1983); Hughes v. 738 462 N.Y.S.2d 32-35-70 ... ry requirements of SDCL Ins. Farm Mut. Auto. State 236 -policy the would eliminate defense of v. Aetna Jordan (N.D.1975); 870 N.W.2d exclusion household at [.]” Surety Company, Casualty & 264 S.C. added). At the time Novak (emphasis 454 Mutual (1975); 818 214 S.E.2d of decided, 32- provisions the of SDCL Enumclaw, Exchange supra; Farmers Ins. mandatory. were not 35-70 Call, See 1985). (Utah P.2d 231 strong public create a The above statutes Annotation, Validity, in under generally, monetary protection and policy favoring statutes, coverage exclusion surance of those in- the benefit of compensation for family injury to or death insured’s negligent operation of a jured through the members, or household A.L.R.4th 18 exclusion household vehicle. Cimarron’s (1987). Nonanna, and others effectively renders Cimarron’s household hereby declare We her, unprotected, in and thus like uninsured poli- liability portion of the in the exclusion policy. These exclusions public violation pub- Dakota violative of South cy invalid as are: lic disturbing [Particularly when viewed Cimarron’s Having found this class of victims light of the fact that public policy, exclusion violates the frequently exposed to is the one most extent determine the we must now of the named potential negligence ar is void. Nonanna the exclusion which require Typical family relations sured. full as to the gues the exclusion is invalid together on the to ride family members by coverage provided amount of church, school, work, social func- way to ($300,000). contends the Consequently, tions, outings. $25,000, the limited to liability should be its by method which practical there is no coverage required by SDCL 32- minimum protection from persons excluded class of exclusion court held the The trial 35-70. their ac- may conform provision this $25,000 statutory mini to the invalid as exposure to the as to avoid tivities so re mum, with and enforceable but valid who, as to riding with someone risk of coverage under excess spect to the them, is uninsured. agree. policy. We Wiscomb, Ins. v. Co. Mutual of Enumclaw jurisdictions split among the is a 203, 208, 441, 444 There 97 Wash.2d The ma- issue. addressed this have which (1982). coverage is void insurer’s limited position holds such exclusions jority coverages required clearly As required by the minimum statute. stated only as to Thus, limits where the trial court its Conclusion of Law V: insur minimum, statutory exceed legislative expressed The clear intent liability is limited to the er’s is com- by this statute that an insurance Arceneaux, supra; required by statute. provide liability coverage pany is free to Co., 259 Ga. Stepho v. Allstate Ins. mandatory excess limits now (1989); DeWitt, supra; S.E.2d 887 required by SDCL 32-35-70 and SDCL Mut. v. Na Bishop, supra; State Farm 32-35-113(1). However, legislature, Mut., 516 A.2d 586 tionwide 307 Md. specifically by enacting SDCL 32-35-75 Auto. Ins. Co. Farm Mutual (1986); State coverage is stated that such additional 448, 231 Shelly, 394 Mich. provisions subject fi- Neal, supra; Farm Estate (1975); responsibility act. As a result, nancial Mastbaum, 748 P.2d Ins. v. Mut. Auto. Croyle Defendant Nonanna A. cannot ar- Wyo Allstate Ins. Co. v. (Utah 1987); responsibility gue that the financial stat- ming Dept., (Wyo.1983). P.2d 810 expresses any public policy re- ute In 7 Am.Jur.2d Automobile generally See fact, coverage. gard to this additional surance § specifically additional such contrast, minority jurisdictions provisions excluded the fi- from the household exclusion hold that where responsibility act. nancial (Emphasis policy, the public held invalid as violative added.) liability are those insurer’s limits of the *5 regulat- industry highly is The insurance policy, than the less provided by the rather are ed in South Dakota. There extensive Meyer v. required by limits er regulations prescribed and statutes and Farm Mut. Auto. State legislature by the state and promulgated Auto. Farm Mut. (Colo.1984); Fa- Petition of department. (Del. Wagamon, A.2d Ins. Co. v. Inc., Brands, mous 347 N.W.2d Club America 1988); Kish v. Motor (S.D.1984), con- this court stated the basic Company, N.J.Super. theory: trolling constitutional (1970). 261 A.2d 662 may elementary, While it be be- Legislature specifical- Dakota The South acknowledge that as a re- us to hooves or the matter of excess addi- ly addressed provisions distribut- of constitutional sult in coverage SDCL 32-35- tional insurance among ing government powers provides: which legislative, execu- departments, the three coverage grants the Any policy which legisla- no tive, courts have judicial, poli- required for a motor vehicle judi- authority, and should avoid tive coverage in grant any lawful cy may also usurpation legisla- legislation, cial a coverage specified for a addition to legis- powers, any entry or into the tive liability policy and such motor vehicle Thus it has said that lative field. been coverage shall or additional excess may as to the opinion its be whatever chap- this subject provisions to the necessity for or the statute wisdom respect policy which ter. With to a duty court legislation, the further additional cover- grants such excess or found, apply objectively is to law poli- age term ‘motor vehicle it. and not to revise only part cy’ apply shall change legislature It is for required by 32-35- coverage which § so, authority to do This court has no laws. added.) (Emphasis 70 or 32-35-71. appear to be may despite results which plain language, excess By the statute’s earlier, legislature stated unjust. As provisions of coverage subject is not issue. clearly spoken on this has responsi- statutes on financial this state’s Therefore, must adhere to the we Therefore, we must bility of motorists! established, unambiguous lan- in clear and that the majority rule and hold follow the (S.D.1981). Janklow, The govern- legislative branch of guage, by the language implication of this is that clear ment. coverage may be motorist underinsured certain terms and conditions. subject II. Finch, 32 St.3d Dairyland Ins. Ohio Co. contends she is also enti Nonanna terms, By its 513 N.E.2d coverage. to underinsured motorist tled policy excludes the insured’s Cimarron’s portion of the motorist The underinsured cover- from underinsured motorist vehicle coverage from policy excludes the trial court on this age. We affirm by. “owned or furnished any vehicle issue. regular you for the use available considered the other issues We have contends this family member.” Cimarron by Croyle find them to be lack- raised insured ve clearly exempts the language in ing merit. hicle from underinsured public Dakota not inconsistent with South AMUNDSON, JJ., concur. SABERS and this The trial court denied Nonanna policy. HENDERSON, JJ., concur WUEST and agree. We below. part. part dissent in all motor requires that SDCL 58-11-9.4 policies contain liability insurance vehicle WUEST, (concurring part Justice coverage in an motorist underinsured dissenting part). bodily injury limits of equal to the amount great victory decision is a fur- 58-11-9.5 elucidates day companies, but a sad for the insurance ther: people of Dakota. for the conditions Subject to the terms and leg- guest repealed our statute motorist cover- such underinsured companies re- The insurance islature. agrees to company age, the insurance sponded with the household exclusion. uncompensated pay its own insured negates liability coverage This exclusion may recover on damages as its insured people are most the insured to the who arising bodily injury or death account of passengers likely and most to be often his an automobile accident because out of *6 family. injured—his against the own- judgment recovered the judgment proof, the If the insured is policy exceeds the er the other vehicle family of the are left injured members Coverage limited shall be limits thereon. injuries. If any recourse for their without coverage motorist to the underinsured valid, a ma- family exclusion clause is the party of the recover- limits on the vehicle do not have ade- jority of Dakotans South liability the paid amount ing less the although they are liability coverage quate against. party recovered insurer for it. paying added.) (Emphasis family majority holds the The decision argues that the above em Cimarron $25,000.00. I up to exclusion clause void is language of SDCL 58-11-9.5 phasized majority disagree agree. I Where right of insur recognition of the legislative $25,000.00. limiting portions to is the void on place to conditions companies ance If the exclu- policy limits. It should be coverage. We motorist underinsured void, it is is If it is dead sion is void. are to be of statutes agree. The terms spot, it is apple a rotten If an has dead. according plain to their and ordi construed apple. still a rotten AT & T nary meaning. Appeal Infor are jurisdictions (S.D. from other 24 The cases Systems, 405 N.W.2d mation majority supporting the The cases split.1 1987); Conservancy Subdistrict Oahe Mut., 307 e.g., v. Nationwide Farm Mut. majority position holds such exclusions 1. The (1986); Mut. State Farm coverages A.2d 586 required Md. 516 only the minimum void as to (Utah Mastbaum, P.2d 1042 Thus, Co. v. 748 policy Auto. Ins. limits exceed statute. where 1987); minimum, Stepho 259 Ga. v. Allstate statutory insurer’s is (Ga.1989); Young, See, DeWitt v. 229 required by S.E.2d coverage to the limited regarding coverage for parties are free to contract dom to contract opinion reason required coverage ignore the minimum reality. for above household members is to fallacy argument is: The that law. clear that The record is South Dakotans you do contract with when all Who propo- are faced with a “take-it-or-leave-it” companies family have a exclu- purchasing sition when it comes to automo- policies? Mr. provision their South sion Indeed, bile insurance. take it or leave it. The Dakotan has to the ‘take it or leave it’ nature of obtain- policies become contracts of adhesion ing liability coverage, automobile and the opin- later in this which will be addressed policy’s effect exclu- [household] ion. parties may sion on third who are or be great deal of majority places The ignorant arrangements of the insurance provisions 32-35-75 weight on the incompetent or unable contract theory limiting support their themselves, for for illustrates $25,000.00. All that statute means fragility assertion that $25,- may more than liability/coverage be policies terms of this or similar insurance minori- adopt I the so-called 000.00. would truly product are the of conscious bar- Dakota as the Cimarron ty rule South gaining parties. argu- between the in its policy household exclusion void might credibly ment more made were up should be liable entirety and Cimarron there evidence that the insureds had policy limits. to the been, are, traditionally offered the or opinion by the trial My is bolstered including excluding coverage choice of determination, agree, I with which court’s members. contract of the Cimarron is a that 109-110, Estep, 103 703 P.2d at N.M. at mandates ev- SDCL 32-35-113 adhesion. 886-887. form of financial ery driver maintain some I find to be a would the Cimarron or her motor vehicle. responsibility on his adhesion, legis contract of and because our means people, For the has, matter, practical mandated lature as a repeat, I liability insurance. automobile insurance, find automobile would agent who sold the insurance Sr. public poli household exclusion violates all automo- his Cimarron testified ch. 32-35. cy irrespective of SDCL See policies available bile insurance Telephone Bell Rozeboom v. Northwestern household exclusions Dakota contain (S.D.1984); Durham substantially similar identical (S.D. Ciba-Geigy Corp., testimony has not This 1982); Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. State Farm been controverted. (Utah Mastbaum, policies without that insurance The fact 1987) (Durham, J., dissenting). in this are unavailable household exclusions *7 house- support A in of rationale offered parties any undercuts assertion state of insurers protection hold exclusions is the coverage in excess free to contract are or collusive lawsuits from fraudulent $25,000.00. Mutual Enumclaw See of See, Farm- among family e.g., members. 203, Wiscomb, 643 97 Wash.2d v. Ins. Co. (Utah Call, 712 P.2d 231 Ins. Exch. v. 441, (1982). say there is free- ers 445 To See, required 474, (1981); than the lesser limits State Farm Mut. 625 P.2d 478 Kan. 448, Wagamon, Shelly, e.g., 231 Ins. Co. v. 394 Mich. State Farm Mut. Auto. Auto. Ins. Co. v. (1975); (Del.1988); v. State Farm Meyer 641 Arceneaux Farm N.W.2d v. State 541 A.2d 557 216, Co., P.2d 87 (Colo.1984). 113 Ariz. 550 Mut. Auto. Ins. P.2d 585 Auto. Ins. 689 Mut. Exchange, (1976); Ins. Neal v. Farmers Estate 108 Motor Club Am. Ins. See also Kish v. 348, (1977); Ins. Co. Allstate 566 P.2d 81 93 Nev. 405, (1970). N.J.Super. 261 A.2d 662 (Wyo.1983). Wyoming Dept., P.2d 810 672 v. generally Am.Jur.2d Automobile See agent Sr. his who sold 2. The insurance (1980). § 30 insur- all automobile testified jurisdictions that where minority hold A Dakota contain policies in South available ance as viola- held invalid exclusion is the household substantially identical or exclusions of the insurer’s public policy, limits tive of (cid:127) to the Cimarron similar policy, rather are those Wiscomb, imposed upon Croyle, in its 1985); P.2d sion Sr. void 97 Wash.2d 441; public policy and entirety as violative of Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. Mich.App. Traycik, 86 the trial court on that issue. See reverse argument unper- Rozeboom, 241; Durham, find this I would following in suasive this instance for N.W.2d 696. reasons. practical majority deci- result of the First, excep- and fraud are the collusion many is to leave South Dakota drivers sion rule, thus, rather than the

tion exposed injuries family if to a to de- exclusion far exceeds the evil was $25,000.00. damages exceeds member Wiscomb, signed protect against. average person agent or his does Since the P.2d at 444. exclusions, those insureds not read the possibility of collusion exists to $25,000.00 in [T]he limits excess of Every day in case. certain extent family surprise are in for a when a member juries judges trial depend on

we $25,- injured coverage in excess of —no in order to determine the sift evidence 000.00. proper at verdicts. Ex- facts and arrive purchased automo- Anybody who has an that the courts are perience has shown liability policy cost for knows bile adequate for this task. quite $25,000.00 is minimal. The in excess of voiding exclusion expense of addition, safeguards exist to other very entirety in its would cost little. clause unscrupulous protect against insurers majority I concur with the on the other households. Insurers conduct collusive issues. require prompt thorough investigations, accidents, spe- and function as notice of HENDERSON, (specially Justice concur- They are not like- in their fields. cialists ring part; dissenting part). in easy fraudulent law- ly to victims of always represented suits. The insured is I. company, who will care- by the insurance approximately one- specially concur insurer’s fully represent the interest i.e., opinion, declaring majority half of the Furthermore, insured. most well as the in the lia- household exclusion Cimarron’s the in- require cooperation from policies being bility portion invalid as penalties false provide sured public policy. of this state’s violative statements. Call, 712 P.2d at 235-36. II. Second, rejected has jurisdiction this past Jus- Joining our immediate Chief part, upon premised, in whole or laws in toto on the tice’s dissent balance law rationale. The common the collusion opinion, I likewise dissent to limit- immunity re intraspousal doctrine of up ing family exclusion clause judicial years decision “void”— jected statute $25,000.00. magic in the Where is the 25-2-15; ago, Scotvold Scot see SDCL $25,000 poli- discussing public figure when (1941), vold, 298 N.W. 68 S.D. cy? Statute, Automobile Guest South Dakota’s 32-34-1, repealed in For whom? Cer- Freedom to contract. Implicit in the re ch. S.D.Laws § rights not, example, for the tainly as an *8 recognition by our these laws is jection of (defenseless commercial a little child rationale is no legislature that the collusion life) his or word, has had maimed for who prohibit adequate justification for longer protection contract- rights her of financial persons from redress ing class of an entire Responsibility Act Financial away. Our ed personal injuries. for monetary protection fostered to assure Dakotans who compensation for South and con- the is a It is clear Cimarron careless through negligent, injuries adhesion, suffer under such circum- tract of and public highways use of and reckless stances, the household exclu- I would hold —not rights away. Majority opinion my it the of to take would fellow South Dakotans away deny strip and little chil- I present and thus dissent on our Chief dren, spouses and members of an position $25,000 “cap.” Justice’s on the of Supreme the Court insured. As Wiscon- Croyle Nonanna is an innocent victim. Safety Responsibility “The sin observed: protection is She entitled to under SDCL designed protect the third- Law 32-35-70 requires which that: party beneficiary, not the named insured.” of liability An insur- owner’s Indemnity Co., Mueller American person ance ... shall insure the named In Wis.2d N.W.2d any person therein other and as opinion, capping my the decision below cov- sured, ... against loss the liabili- from $25,000, erage fig- at void above but that ty damages arising imposed by law ure, public policy. is violative of out maintenance, ownership, the of here, public the balancing justice poli In use the .... vehicle (Emphasis add- of cy providing monetary protection of ed.) comparison for all South Dakotans over 1986, additionally, the South Dakota analysis. rides of contract” “freedom 32-35-113, Legislature passed Therefore, holdings which support I the in the required operators minority jurisdictions, relying on all owners and the exact majority opinion the motor vehicles three cases cited must have insur- Farm, during position. motor operation Justice Wuest’s ance the of a ve- Meyer, Essentially, the Kish. part: This pertinent hicle. statute states in support opinion splitting wrong hairs to Every driver or owner of a motor ve- (i.e., $25,000.00 void; an amount above hicle shall times maintain in at all force void). posterity, that is For it should responsibili- one of the forms of financial alleged has mentioned that Nonanna ty on the one of motor vehicle injury. brain Allen Paul Jr.’s driv following methods: ing person, killed Jeanette Pe another St. (1) ... an owner’s Company ter. as § 32-35-70[.] brought declaratory judgment this lawsuit Fliflet, In Richard v. 370 N.W.2d Cimarron is pocketbook. to save its an (N.D.1985), Supreme Court North the law and no inanimate creation of has expressed: Dakota i.e., wrong, justice right sense this overriding purpose of our piqued; financial its case. Nor is conscience inani protect innocent objects is to responsibility mate do not have conscience. Hu law mans, creator, victims motor by their with a accidents from endowed vehicle psyche, added.) have a con (Emphasis brain emotional financial disaster. In one science. Humans care. election Company In Rural Mutual Insurance District, Supreme from a and then in Court Peterson, 165, 395 134 Wis.2d election, people one retention state-wide expressed: (1986) it was * bequeathed me the title “Justice.” with liberty Parties are to enter insurance at supposed myself jus am to concern specify the af- contracts which stands, justice As I see no ultimate tice. long as the contract forded join writing in this case. I cannot contract terms do not contravene state present In all re our Chief Justice. due added.) public law or (Emphasis Justice, spect present to our Chief the ma Family Mutual In v. American Streich jority opinion, my opinion, injus creates (Minn. Company, surance opin people tice for of this state. This 1984), supports position. consequences against this same Con- far-reaching has ion * this, ing Court then people been elected to the Circuit Prior to of the Seventh Judicial (and Supreme in a position Court retained statewide of Circuit Circuit elected me to the ballot), years. of this kind of I am the last Judge for four retention Court where I served My Dakota, identifica- judge judge gen- Judicial Mohican on this Court. is a a circuit rights feelings, thoughts, and jurisdiction panoply power, tion is with the of trial eral encompassing with a people. jury Hav- presiding over trials. *9 in recognized contracts of adhesion majority my Broth- We

cerned I am that the Court, setting my opinion, Cheney in have for- in v. Metro ers on this an insurance (S.D. public policy saken the state law and 370 N.W.2d 569 politan both Life J., arguments 1985) (Henderson, dissenting the vital inter- which address on other Dakota, com- people plowing virgin of South grounds). ests of the are not We position of a Kan- pared parties to the contractual ground I note that both now. corporation. sas insurance the issue as to terms briefed cited to exclusion. Cimarron statutes, try- addressing In all of these Rozeboom, addressing that are contracts good public them for the ing to harmonize unreasonable, oppressive; harsh or Cimar- safety, us examine two further let sought distinguish Rozeboom. ron requires that a 32-35-72 statutes. SDCL Croyle contracts of adhesion. also briefed liability policy: motor vehicle Thus, squarely before this Court. agreement that contain an ... [S]hall keeping my thesis heretofore articu with in accordance insurance is ... lated, the insurance before us is an chapter defined in this with agent testi adhesion contract. Cimarron's bodily injury and is sub- respects ... as Croyle’s not be able fied that father would provisions chapter. of this ject to all the a an insurance without obtain 32-35-74(4) that: states n Family Croyle’s father Exclusion Clause. (4) any rider or en- ... and had no choice to include or exclude cover does not conflict with dorsement which age “No choice” re members. chapter con- provisions of this shall bargaining flects no conscious between the entire contract between the stitute the parties. good Read discussion of this parties. point Estep in v. State Farm Mutual Here, by contract issued the insurance 103 N.M. Automobile corporation, insurance Cimar- the Kansas are, 886-87 Wives and children ron, coverage required by clearly omitted essentially, ordinarily ignorant of the insur policy expressed in SDCL language and provisions incompetent to contract. ance Dakota, In South 32-35-113 and 32-35-70. so, myself are in liability in- And Justice Wuest my position is that automobile mandated; minority. Thanks to the just required it is not So what? surance is Galileo, his successors found proof responsibility. Where discoveries of of financial clauses which conflict themselves a New Earth surrounded there are exclusion sang the requirements, as can not- New Heavens. Walt Whitman statutory be legal heretofore, song “Open Many Road.” they are invalid. State ed viewpoints on the v. minds have different Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance Co. (Del.1988). pioneer very subject before us. am no on Wagamon, 541 A.2d 560-61 hand. the issue at Green v. Clinic corporations should not abuse (S.D. Masters, Inc., 272 N.W.2d 815-16 state law nor should these our 1978), recognized contracts adhesion were public policy. Nor corporations dictate gentlemen by some of the former who permitted to enslave the they should be gone on on this Court and have now served people of Dakota with contracts heavenly their reward. Back which, adhesion, contracts of their case, decided the Durham cited this Court nature, public policy. against are herent story. Same Adhesion Justice Wuest. “free- Realistically, Croyle’s father had no recognized South Dakota. contracts in. accepted Either he dom of contract.” men; creative men who Thank God for he not insurance. He policy or did have As I dare to different. wrote Roze- dilemma as was confronted with same boom, at 246: it.” all South Dakotans: “Take it or leave law, appreciate viewpoint And, fully man- We our under South Dakota he is viewpoint in this Na- the traditional liability insur- dated to have automobile righteousness a cause is tion. The companies If the insurance dictate ance. terms, solitary perhaps time will bet- often it is adhesive. *10 pronouncement. In a dem- ter serve our persevere sys- society, we under a

ocratic change is

tem of laws where inevitable.

Change simple, good, and effectu- can be Here, change in

al. we associate with op-

simple opposed fairness basic

pression.

Here, rule, a under under the child age emancipation cannot sue his

parent parental negligence. Maimed life, leffe,defenseless he com- Simple fairness tells me

mercial world. this should not be. This case accords opportunity protect

us an individuals a with us. who reside

within them, side rather than the Kan-

would corporation whose own

sas oath, upon cross

agent, impales under Justice, I adhesion. With our ex-Chief nails.

would drive the CHICOINE,

Michael Plaintiff James Appellant, CHICOINE, Kay Defendant

Lisa Appellee.

No. 17364.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

Argued Sept. 8, 1992.

Decided Jan.