Insurance Bad Faith Motions & Briefs
Insurance Bad Faith – Military Service Exclusion
Summary of Motion
When Dr. Josh Brower, a South Dakota dentist, became disabled after more than 20 years of practicing, his insurance company refused to honor his claim. Their excuse? They said his disability was “caused by” his military service two decades earlier. That denial made no sense: Dr. Brower had worked full-time as a dentist for over twenty years with no issues.
We filed a motion asking the court to rule that the insurer’s denial was unlawful. Insurance companies can’t twist vague policy language to escape paying benefits. Under the law, if a policy term is unclear, it must be interpreted in favor of the insured—not the insurer who wrote it. No reasonable jury could say military service from the late 1990s was the direct cause of a disability in 2022.
The insurer also tried fallback excuses, claiming Dr. Brower wasn’t under “regular care of a physician” or that his doctors should have done more. But the law doesn’t allow insurers to invent new reasons after the fact.
This motion is about holding insurers to their promises. When you’ve paid premiums for years, you deserve the coverage you bought—not shifting excuses.
Documents
Complaint: pdf of the filed motion; full text of the motion
Insurance Bad Faith – Choice of Law Clauses
Summary of Motion
Insurance companies often try to limit your rights by pointing to “choice of law” clauses—language saying disputes will be governed by the law of another state. In Dr. Brower’s case, the insurer argued that Illinois law should apply to his insurance bad faith claim, even though he lives in South Dakota and the claim was handled there.
Why does this matter? Because Illinois law gives policyholders almost no real remedy for insurance bad faith. Damages are capped at $60,000 plus attorney fees, no matter how much harm the insurer causes. South Dakota law, by contrast, allows full compensation and punitive damages where warranted—stronger tools to deter insurers from dishonest conduct.
Our motion asked the court to rule that South Dakota law controls. First, the policy’s choice-of-law clause is ambiguous. Courts must read ambiguities in insurance policies against the insurer. Second, even if the clause weren’t ambiguous, enforcing it would gut South Dakota’s strong public policy of holding insurers accountable.
When insurance companies use out-of-state law to strip away your protections, we fight back. Policyholders deserve the remedies their own state provides—not watered-down rights from a state the insurer picked to protect itself.
Documents
Complaint: pdf of the filed motion; full text of the motion