Fall River Co. v. S.D. Public Assurance Alliance

2001 SD 40 (2001) (S.D. 2001) · South Dakota Supreme Court · March 21, 2001 · No. #21690-a

Summary

Fall River County sought coverage under an errors and omissions policy for a claim arising from the county's allegedly improper retroactive reclassification and assessment of real property for tax purposes. The South Dakota Supreme Court held that the policy's broad exclusion for wrongful acts connected with tax assessments, adjustments, or tax collection unambiguously excluded coverage. The court affirmed summary judgment for the South Dakota Public Assurance Alliance.

Court
South Dakota Supreme Court
Writing for the Court
Gilbertson, Justice; Miller, Chief Justice; Sabers, Justice; Amundson, Justice; Konenkamp, Justice
Jurisdiction
South Dakota
Decision date
March 21, 2001
Docket number
#21690-a
Procedural posture
Fall River County brought a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination of coverage under an errors-and-omissions insurance policy. The circuit court granted summary judgment to South Dakota Public Assurance Alliance, concluding that the policy's tax-related exclusion barred coverage. The County appealed.
Standard of review
Summary judgment is affirmed if there are no genuine issues of material fact and all legal questions were decided correctly. Because the material facts were undisputed, interpretation of the insurance policy, including whether it was ambiguous, was reviewed de novo.
Precedential value
precedential
Parties
Fall River County, a political subdivision of the State of South Dakota v. South Dakota Public Assurance Alliance
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

declaratory relief insuranceinsurance coverageproperty taxstatutory interpretationtax

Practice areas

insurance coverageproperty taxationdeclaratory judgmentsummary judgmentstatutory interpretation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the errors-and-omissions policy's exclusion for any wrongful act in connection with a tax assessment, fine, fee, adjustment, or the collection, refund, disbursement, or application of taxes barred coverage for the County's claim.
  2. Whether the property's tax classification could be separated from the resulting tax assessment so that the exclusion would not apply.
  3. Whether the circuit court properly granted summary judgment to the Alliance.

Holdings

  1. The policy's tax-related exclusion is clear and unambiguous and excludes coverage for any wrongful act in connection with tax-related activity, including the assessment or adjustment of taxes.
  2. The tax-property classification was an act in connection with the tax assessment, so the County could not avoid the exclusion by characterizing the classification and assessment as separate acts.
  3. Summary judgment for the Alliance was proper because no material facts were disputed and the policy, as a matter of law, provided no coverage for the County's acts.

Key quotations

This language is broadly written and is clear and unambiguous in its intent to exclude coverage for any wrongful act in connection with tax related activity. (¶8)
Because Segers’ lawsuit challenged the assessment, the claim falls within the tax exclusion. (¶9)

Factual background

In 1993, Charles and Lois Seger purchased 3,737 acres in Fall River County under a contract for deed. After the legislature enacted SDCL 10-6-58, the County's director of equalization told the Segers that the statute applied retroactively and reclassified their property, which increased their prospective property-tax burden. The County later acknowledged that the statute's effective date was July 1, 1993, abated and refunded taxes, and restored the property's agricultural classification. The Segers then sued the County for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred in reversing the reclassification, and the County sought coverage from the Alliance.

Procedural history

After the County submitted a claim to the Alliance arising from a taxpayer lawsuit concerning a property-tax reclassification and assessment, the Alliance denied coverage. The County filed a declaratory action, and both parties moved for summary judgment. The Seventh Judicial Circuit Court, Fall River County, granted judgment for the Alliance, and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…