The South Dakota Supreme Court issued a mixed ruling in *Kaiser Trucking, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company*, partially affirming and partially reversing the circuit court's decision in this protracted insurance coverage dispute that has now reached the state's highest court twice.
The case stems from a 2015 collision involving David Simons, a truck driver working as an agent for Kaiser Trucking, and Bianca Spotted Thunder, who was driving a vehicle owned by her father, Charles Spotted Thunder. The Spotted Thunders were insured under an automobile policy issued by Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company.
After the accident, Kaiser Trucking pursued legal action against Bianca Spotted Thunder and obtained a default judgment against her. However, when that judgment remained unsatisfied, Kaiser Trucking turned its attention to Liberty Mutual, seeking recovery under the insurance policy covering the Spotted Thunders.
The legal battle began when Kaiser Trucking filed suit against Liberty Mutual seeking coverage under the insureds' policy. The circuit court initially dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. Kaiser Trucking appealed that dismissal to the South Dakota Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court's decision in the first appeal, allowing the case to proceed.
Following the Supreme Court's reversal, the case returned to the Seventh Judicial Circuit Court of Pennington County, where Judge Joshua Hendrickson presided. On remand, Liberty Mutual moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not responsible for coverage due to the insureds' failure to comply with conditions specified in the insurance policy.
The specific nature of the policy conditions at issue and the court's reasoning for its mixed ruling were not detailed in the available court documents. However, the notation "#30728-aff in pt & rev in pt-PJD" indicates the court both affirmed certain aspects of the lower court's decision while reversing others, suggesting the legal issues involved were complex and nuanced.
The case was argued before the South Dakota Supreme Court on April 30, 2025, with the court's opinion filed on Feb. 4, 2026, and assigned citation 2026 S.D. 5. The matter was decided by Justice Devaney, who authored the court's opinion.
Representing Kaiser Trucking and David Simons was Jared D. Nooney of Nooney & Solay, LLP, based in Rapid City. Liberty Mutual was represented by Jack H. Hieb and Zachary W. Peterson of Richardson, Wyly, Wise, Sauck & Hieb, LLP, from Aberdeen.
The fact that this case has reached the South Dakota Supreme Court twice indicates the complexity of the legal issues involved and the significance of the dispute for both parties. Insurance coverage disputes in the trucking industry often involve substantial financial stakes, as commercial trucking accidents can result in significant damages and liability exposure.
For Kaiser Trucking, the case represents an effort to access insurance coverage that could help satisfy the judgment obtained against Bianca Spotted Thunder. The company's persistence in pursuing the case through two Supreme Court appeals demonstrates the importance of the potential recovery to the trucking operation.
From Liberty Mutual's perspective, the insurer has consistently argued that policy conditions were not met, which would excuse the company from providing coverage. Insurance companies regularly defend against coverage claims by pointing to policy conditions and requirements that they argue were not satisfied by their insureds.
The mixed nature of the Supreme Court's ruling suggests that while some aspects of Liberty Mutual's arguments were successful, others were not. This type of split decision often occurs when courts find that some policy conditions were violated while others were properly met, or when different legal theories succeed or fail on their individual merits.
The case highlights the complex relationship between insurance coverage obligations and policy compliance requirements. When insureds fail to meet certain policy conditions, insurers may seek to deny coverage entirely. However, courts often examine these situations carefully to determine whether the specific failures justify a complete denial of coverage or whether partial coverage remains appropriate.
The trucking industry faces unique insurance challenges due to the potential for significant liability exposure from accidents involving commercial vehicles. Cases like *Kaiser Trucking* illustrate how insurance coverage disputes in this sector can become protracted legal battles with substantial implications for all parties involved.
With the Supreme Court's mixed ruling now issued, the case will likely return to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with the high court's decision. The specific terms of any ultimate resolution will depend on how the circuit court implements the Supreme Court's guidance regarding which aspects of the case were properly decided and which require reconsideration.