The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
00-1190•Pansy Blackwell v. Jim Hohn
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 00-1988
___________
Kansas Bankers Surety Company, *
*
Appellee, *
*
v. *
*
First Premier Bank, N.A.; *
T. Denny Sanford, *
*
Appellants. *
__________ Appeals from the United States
District Court for the District of
No. 00-2111 South Dakota.
__________
[UNPUBLISHED]
Kansas Bankers Surety Company, *
*
Appellant, *
*
v. *
*
First Premier Bank, N.A.; *
T. Denny Sanford, *
*
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: December 11, 2000
Filed: December 19, 2000
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
___________
Before LOKEN, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
First Premier Bank, N.A. obtained directors and officers insurance from Kansas
Bankers Surety Company. After First Premier's chief executive officer, T. Denny
Sanford, was sued in South Dakota state court, Kansas Bankers brought this
declaratory judgment action asserting it had no duty to defend Sanford. Kansas
Bankers and First Premier filed opposing motions for summary judgment, and the
district court granted Kansas Bankers's motion. Applying South Dakota law, the
district court concluded Kansas Bankers had no duty to defend because the claims
against Sanford in the state-court action fall outside policy coverage under the personal
profit exclusion. The district court found no need to decide the issue of whether First
Premier and Sanford complied with the policy's notice provisions, and declined to
award attorney's fees or costs. First Premier and Sanford appeal asserting all of their
claims did not fall within the personal profit exclusion, and Kansas Bankers cross-
appeals on the notice issue. Having carefully considered the record, we affirm this
diversity case on the basis of the district court's memorandum opinion and order. See
8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.