Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 19,800+ case briefs...

De Smet Farm Mutual Insurance Company of South Dakota v. Busskohl

South Dakota Supreme Court
834 N.W.2d 826 (2013)


In 1983, David Busskohl (defendant) was living in his parents’ home when a fire destroyed it. His parents used the insurance proceeds to build Busskohl a house, which burned in 1990. An investigation suggested arson involving Busskohl. Busskohl and his wife built a second house at the same location and visited an American Family Insurance Company agent to insure it after the 1990 fire. But the agent said the underwriter would not insure the house because of the Busskohls’ loss history. In 2004, the Busskohls filled out an application with De Smet Farm Mutual Insurance Company of South Dakota (plaintiff). In response to “Has any insurer cancelled, refused, restricted, or declined to renew similar insurance?” Busskohl checked no. Had he answered yes, the application required an explanation. De Smet insured the house, and a third fire destroyed it nearly a year later. De Smet paid out nearly half a million dollars, but Busskohl sued, claiming the coverage limits were inadequate. During litigation, De Smet discovered American Family had refused to insure the Busskohls and sued to rescind the policy and recover the proceeds. The underwriting supervisor submitted an affidavit stating he would not have insured the Busskohls if he knew about the denial, because he would have obtained a copy of the 1990 fire-investigation report, which also disclosed the 1983 fire and Busskohl’s possible involvement. Busskohl denied misrepresenting that he was refused similar coverage because he never submitted a written application to American Family or received a written rejection and claimed he withdrew the American Family application because he decided to seek coverage elsewhere. But Busskohl’s wife testified they had gone to the agent seeking insurance and were told American Family would not insure them. The trial court granted summary judgment for De Smet, and Busskohl appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Severson, J.)

Dissent (Stoltenburg, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 506,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 506,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 19,800 briefs, keyed to 985 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial