Zochert v. National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co.
1998 SD 34, 576 N.W.2d 531, 1998 S.D. LEXIS 33 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under an insurance policy that provides for settlement on the basis of 'actual cash value,' that value is not synonymous with replacement cost. Instead, it is determined by the 'broad evidence rule,' which requires consideration of all relevant factors, including replacement cost less depreciation, to indemnify the insured without providing a windfall.
Facts:
- Ivan and Neil Zochert, d/b/a Zochert Farms, Inc. (Zochert) owned two silos that were approximately twenty years old.
- Zochert insured the silos under a farmowner's policy with National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Company (Company).
- The policy stipulated that loss would be settled on the basis of the 'actual cash value of the property damaged.'
- On May 17, 1996, both silos sustained wind damage.
- Company's adjuster estimated the full cost to repair the silos (replacement cost) to be $15,255.76.
- Company calculated the depreciation on the twenty-year-old silos to be $5,166.96.
- Company subtracted the depreciation amount and a deductible from the replacement cost and issued a payment to Zochert.
- Zochert disputed the deduction for depreciation, believing they were entitled to the full replacement cost.
Procedural Posture:
- Zochert filed a lawsuit against Company in a state trial court to recover the deducted depreciation amount of $5,166.96.
- Both Zochert and Company filed motions for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Zochert.
- Company, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the term 'actual cash value' in an insurance policy, when not explicitly defined, mean replacement cost without a deduction for depreciation?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The term 'actual cash value' is not synonymous with replacement cost and implicitly requires a deduction for depreciation. The policy's language itself distinguishes between 'actual cash value' and 'replacement cost without deduction for depreciation,' indicating they are different settlement methods. To allow an insured to recover the full replacement cost for depreciated property would violate the principle of indemnity by providing a windfall, placing the insured in a better position than they were before the loss. The court reaffirms its adoption of the 'broad evidence rule,' established in Lampe Market Co. v. Alliance Ins. Co., which mandates that depreciation be considered as a factor in determining actual cash value, along with other relevant evidence such as market value and obsolescence.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the distinction between 'actual cash value' (ACV) and 'replacement cost' coverage in South Dakota insurance law, aligning the state with the majority of jurisdictions. It reinforces the fundamental principle of indemnity, which posits that insurance should make an insured whole, not create a profit from a loss. By reaffirming the 'broad evidence rule' for determining ACV, the court provides a flexible yet principled framework for valuation that mandates considering depreciation, thus preventing insured parties from receiving a windfall by having old property replaced with new property at the insurer's full expense.
