Vollmer v. Akerson

Summary

The Supreme Court of South Dakota held that an employment contract did not require a dentist to purchase tail liability insurance when his one-year employment term naturally expired. The court concluded that the contract unambiguously required tail coverage only upon a defined termination event and affirmed summary judgment awarding the withheld amount to the employee.

Holdings

1. The contract did not require Vollmer to purchase tail insurance coverage upon the natural expiration of the one-year employment term. The tail-coverage obligation applied only when the agreement was cut short or otherwise terminated through one of the defined termination events.
2. The contract was unambiguous and clear, and the employer's contrary interpretation did not create an ambiguity. Because the parties' intent was ascertainable from the four corners of the agreement, extrinsic evidence was unnecessary and summary judgment was proper.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the employment contract required Vollmer to purchase tail insurance coverage when the one-year employment term naturally expired.
2. Whether the contract was ambiguous such that extrinsic evidence and a jury determination were required, thereby precluding summary judgment.

Disposition

affirmed