aptly comports with our discussion of manifest intent in First Dakota National Bank. In First Dakota National Bank, 2 F.3d at 813, we upheld a jury instruction that stated that manifest intent under South Dakota law means a "clearly evident intent." The instruction stated: "You may consider any statement made or act done or omitted by a party whose intent is in issue, and all of the facts and circumstances which indicate his state of mind.” Id. “You may consider it reasonable to draw the inference and find that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of acts knowingly done or knowingly omitted.” Id.; see FDIC v. United Pacific Ins. Co., 20 F.3d 1070, 1077-78 (10th Cir.1994) (approving similar jury instructions); FDIC v. Oldenburg, 34 F.3d 1529, 1539 (10th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); but see Resolution Trust Corp. v. Fidelity
holding that a subjective expectation of survival is objec tively reasonable if death is not substantially certain to result from the insureds conduct holding that the cgia was intended to apply when the claimant seeks redress from injuries that result from tortious conduct holding that such a duty exists holding that manifest intent exists when a particular result is substantially certain to follow from the employees conduct holding that instructions are sufficient which substantially follow the language of the statute or use equivalent language