Ambassador Ins. Co. v. Montes, 76 N.J. 477, 483, 388 A.2d 603, 606 (1978) which states “[w]ere a person able to insure himself against economic consequences of his intentional wrongdoing, the deterrence attributable to financial responsibility would be missing.”); Bollinger, 476 N.W.2d 697 (S.D.1991) (stating that if insured, through intentional acts, consciously controls risks covered by the policy, the central concept of insurance is violated); SDCL 53-9-3 (providing that contracts which have the purpose of exempting anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, willful injury, or violation of law are against public policy). [¶ 34.] Under South Dakota law, “public policy prohibits extending insurance coverage to an individual who intentionally harms others.” Wertz, 540 N.W.2d at 640 (<HOLDING>). As mentioned earlier, this principle was
holding that even a driver not listed as an authorized driver for a rental car could nevertheless have an expectation of privacy if given permission to use the car by an authorized driver holding that defendant who was a passenger in a car had joint constructive possession of drugs found next to the defendants luggage in truck of car even where she disclaimed ownership of the drugs holding that because the government was unable to prove that a truck in which illegal drugs were discovered was stolen the driver and passenger had standing to challenge the search holding a driver who intentionally drives a car into truck with intention of injuring passenger is not allowed to inflict deliberate harm with financial impunity holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search