Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Milky Whey, Inc., a dairy broker based in Montana, bought products from Dairy Partners, LLC, a dairy supply company located in Minnesota. This appeal concerned Milky Whey’s purchase of a product from Dairy Partners that Dairy Partners shipped to Utah. When Milky Whey picked up the product, it had become moldy and unusable. Milky Whey filed suit, alleging breach of contract, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and breach of an obligation to pay. Dairy Partners moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court dismissed the action, concluding that Dairy Partners did not come within Montana’s long-arm jurisdiction statute. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in determining that it could not exercise personal jurisdiction over Dairy Partners. View "Milky Whey, Inc. v. Dairy Partners, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2006, Robert and Teresa James brought a lot in a rural subdivision. At the time of the purchase, Chicago Title Insurance Company issued a title insurance policy that insured against loss or damage by reason of “lack of right of access to and from the land.” In 2013, the Jameses sued Chicago Title, contending that the title insurance policy required Chicago Title to provide them “legal” access to their lot. The district court granted summary judgment to Chicago Title, concluding that the Jameses failed to establish that the title insurance policy entitled them to “legal access” to their lot. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly granted judgment to Chicago Title on the Jameses’ claim, under the title insurance policy, that they lacked a right of access to their real property, as the language of the policy insured against loss from not having “a right” of access, and the Jameses clearly had a right of access when they bought the lot. View "James v. Chicago Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Beaverhead County selected Coleman Construction to complete a stream rehabilitation and bridge replacement project. Coleman was unable to finish the project on time or for the amount of money it had estimated. Coleman subsequently sued for damages, asserting ten claims for relief. The Montana Association of Counties Joint Powers Insurance Authority (MACo), which had issued an insurance policy to the County, denied coverage, finding that the claims against the County were excluded from coverage based upon two exclusions in the policy. The district court granted summary judgment for MACo, ruling that the two exclusions each provided sufficient independent bases for denying coverage. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the claims against the County were not covered by its insurance policy with MACo. View "Beaverhead County v. Mont. Ass’n of Counties Joint Powers Ins. Auth." on Justia Law

San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (“San Diego”) and several NaturEner wind-energy companies (“NaturEner”) entered into two contracts, a purchase agreement and a contribution agreement, under which San Diego agreed to purchase renewable energy credits and electricity from NaturEner. The credits and electricity are generated at a wind farm in Montana. The purchase agreement contained a forum selection clause stating that the parties consented to conduct all litigation in California. San Diego filed suit in a California court seeking a declaration that NaturEner had not satisfied the “Avian Conditions” of the agreements. NaturEner filed a nearly identical suit in a Montana court seeking a declaration that it had satisfied the conditions. San Diego filed a motion to dismiss or stay, which the district court denied. San Diego then petitioned the Supreme Court to exercise supervisory control, claiming that the district court erred by accepting jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute in light of the purchase agreement’s forum selection clause, as well as forum non conveniens. The Supreme Court granted the application for writ of supervisory control, holding (1) the forum selection clause contained in the purchase agreement was mandatory in nature; and (2) related issues regarding the contribution agreement would be appropriately and justly tried in California as well.View "San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. Ninth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

Meadow Brook owned land that it developed into lots with covenants, conditions, and restrictions. Meadow Brook then decided to develop an undeveloped tract as an independent subdivision. The existing homeowners, however, argued that the covenants granted them exclusive use of three roads that future homeowners would need to use to access the subdivision. A court concluded that the covenants did not reserve an easement over the three roads for use by future lot owners. First American Title Insurance Company and First American Title Company of Montana (collectively, First American), which had issued Meadow Brook a title insurance policy, subsequently denied Meadow Brook’s claim for coverage and refused to further defend against the homeowners’ counterclaims. Meadow Brook settled with the homeowners in the easement litigation and then sued First American for, inter alia, breach of contract and negligence. The district court granted summary judgment to Meadow Brook as to the breach of contract claim, concluding First American had insured under the policy that the three roads would be open to public access. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting Meadow Brook’s motion for partial summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. View "Meadow Brook, LLP v. First Am. Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Greg LeMond had an oral contract to purchase a five-acre lot (Lot 11) at the Yellowstone Mountain Club from the lot's owner, Yellowstone Development. Yellowstone Development allegedly breached its contract with LeMond by combining twenty-three acres of additional property with Lot 11 to create what became the Overlook Lots, comprising a total of twenty-eight acres. LeMond sued, claiming that Yellowstone Development breached its contract to convey Lot 11 and was under an equitable duty to convey the entirety of Overlook Lots to LeMond. In its final determination, the district court quieted title to the Overlook Lots in favor of LeMond. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the district court did not provide adequate insight into the equitable considerations involved in granting LeMond title to the Overlook Lots, as Yellowstone Development was obligated to transfer Lot 11 to LeMond and was unjustly enriched by failing to do so, but LeMond was entitled to enforce a constructive trust worth only the equitable value of the parties’ bargain. View "LeMond v. Yellowstone Dev., LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a buy-sell agreement for the purchase of Plaintiff’s home. As agreed upon, Defendant moved into Plaintiff’s home and began paying rent. Before the closing date, however, Defendant notified Plaintiff that he had decided not to purchase the property and had vacated the premises. Plaintiff sued Defendant, alleging constructive fraud, deceit, and negligence. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s tort claims on the ground that they arose strictly out of a breach of contract. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) summary judgment was appropriate on Plaintiff’s constructive fraud and deceit claims; but (2) the district court erred in dismissing Plaintiff’s negligence claim on the ground it arose solely out of duties imposed under the agreement. Remanded.View "Dewey v. Stringer" on Justia Law

Upon the dissolution of their marriage, Husband and Wife entered into a dissolution settlement agreement that provided that Wife was entitled to half of Husband’s federal retirement benefits entered during the parties’ marriage. Wife later sought an order to show cause alleging that Husband violated the agreement by not naming her as the beneficiary of his Survivorship Benefit Plan. The district court granted Wife’s motion, concluding that the agreement awarded Wife a portion of Husband’s Survivorship Annuity. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the plain language of the agreement reflected the parties’ intent that Husband was to retain ownership of the Survivorship Annuity after the dissolution. View "In re Marriage of Bushnell" on Justia Law

Abraham and Betty Jean Morrow filed a request for a modification of their home loan, serviced by Bank of America, through the federal Home Affordable Modification Program. Bank of America denied the modification and scheduled a trustee’s sale of the property. The Morrows subsequently filed a complaint against Bank of America based on the bank’s alleged breach of an oral contract for modification of their loan. The district court granted summary judgment to Bank of America, concluding (1) the Morrows’ claims for breach of contract, fraud, and violation of the Montana Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) were barred by the Statute of Frauds; and (2) the Morrows could not succeed on their claims of negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and tortious breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing because Bank of America owed no duty to the Morrows. The Supreme Court reversed as to the negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and violations of MCPA claims, holding that Bank of America owed a duty to the Morrows, genuine issues of material fact existed as to some claims, and the Statute of Frauds did not preclude the remainder of the Morrows’ claims. View "Morrow v. Bank of Am., N.A." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs entered into a contract for professional services with CTA, Inc., a firm offering architectural, engineering, and construction management services. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against CTA and others, alleging that Defendants negligently designed and constructed Plaintiffs’ home and that CTA breached its contract with Plaintiffs. CTA filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court treated as a motion for summary judgment, on grounds that the contract was subject to mandatory arbitration. Plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, alleging that the arbitration clause in the contract was unenforceable. The district court granted partial summary judgment for Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the arbitration clause was enforceable because it was within Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations and was not oppressive, unconscionable, or against public policy.View "Day v. CTA, Inc." on Justia Law