Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative a certified question issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in this insurance dispute.At issue was Mont. Code Ann. 33-15-334(2), which provides that Mont. Code Ann. 33-15-337(2) is "not intended to increase the risk assumed under policies subject to" its requirements. Specifically in question was whether, when an insurance policy does not adhere to the technical requirements of Mont. Code Ann. 33-15-337(2), the insurer may nonetheless rely on unambiguous exclusions or limitations to the policy's coverage. The Supreme Court answered the question in the affirmative, concluding that, notwithstanding a failure to follow the provisions of section 33-15-337(2), an insurer may rely on unambiguous exclusions or limitations to the policy's coverage when invalidating such a provision would result in an increase of the risk assumed. View "High Country Paving, Inc. v. United Fire & Casualty Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Appellant's motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment in favor of United Services Automobile Association (USAA) in this insurance dispute, holding that the district court did not err.Appellants filed a complaint alleging that USAA violated its duty to defend Shawn Conrad, one of USAA's insured policy-holders against whom Appellants had obtained a judgment. The district court granted summary judgment for USAA, concluding that USAA had no duty to defend Conrad because his conduct against Appellants did not fall within the scope of the policy's coverage. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellants' claims against Conrad were beyond the scope of coverage in USAA's policy; and (2) therefore, USAA did not have a duty to defend Conrad. View "R.S. v. United Services Automobile Ass'n" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Depositors Insurance Company in its declaratory judgment action to determine any obligation it had relative to Patrick Sandidge pursuant to Ridley v. Guaranty National Insurance Co., 951 P.2d 987 (Mont. 1997), holding that the district court did not err.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court (1) did not err by holding a hearing on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment; (2) did not err by holding that Depositors had standing to bring a declaratory action pursuant to Ridley; (3) did not err by granting Depositors' motion for summary judgment; and (4) did not abuse its discretion by denying Sandidge attorney fees and costs. View "Depositors Insurance Co. v. Sandidge" on Justia Law

In this insurance dispute, the Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the judgment of the district court granting the cross-motion for partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and New West Health Services and denying Allied World Assurance Company's motion for partial summary judgment, holding that the district court erred in part.Dana Rolan, who serious injuries in an automobile accident, had health insurance through New West. New West denied coverage because the tortfeasor's liability insurance paid $100,000 of Rolan's medical expenses. Rolan filed a class action complaint alleging that New West violated its made-whole obligations. New West tendered the defense to its insurer, Allied. The district court certified the class and held New West liable for monetary losses. Plaintiffs and New West subsequently entered into a settlement. Allied opposed the district court's ensuing motion for final judgment, arguing that the proposed settlement amount was not covered by Allied. The district court approved the settlement between New West and Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court held that the district court (1) erred in holding that Allied was estopped from asserting a $1 million "each Claim" limit of liability under the policy; and (2) correctly concluded that Allied's "Loss" provision did not preclude Allied's indemnity obligation of the class's damages. View "Rolan v. New West Health Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the district court that the State was covered by an insurance policy it had with National Indemnity Company (National) for claims made against the State for injury and death resulting from asbestos exposure but reversed the district court's rulings regarding qualifying "occurrences" under the policy, holding that remand was required for further consideration of these issues.This insurance dispute followed litigation between the State and claimants who alleged that they were harmed by the State's failure to warn them of the hazards of asbestos exposure over years of mining and milling operations in Libby, Montana. National insured the State against general liability from 1973-1975. National filed this action seeking determinations that it had no obligation to defend the State or to cover the claims. The State concluded that National breached its duty to defend the State but disagreed with the district court's determination of the number of "occurrences" eligible for coverage under the policy, holding that remand was required for further factual findings. View "National Indemnity Co. v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the judgment of the district court concluding that Appellant was not entitled to underinsured motorist (UIM) and medical payment (MP) coverages under his automobile policy with USAA Casualty Insurance Company, holding that the court erred in part.The district court granted summary judgment for USAA on both coverages. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) as to the UIM coverage, the district court erred by interpreting the contract and determining its terms were not contrary to public policy; and (2) as to the MP coverage, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of USAA. View "Goss v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court dismissing as moot Appellant's claim for declaratory judgment that The Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company had a duty as an insurer to provide its insured's policy to a third-party claimant when the insured's liability was reasonably clear, holding that the district court improperly dismissed The Hartford from the action.The district court dismissed the case as moot after the insureds provided the policy at issue to Appellant. On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court erred in dismissing the case because The Hartford failed to meet its burden of demonstrating the inapplicability of the voluntary cessation exception to mootness. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the district court erred by failing to apply the voluntary cessation exception to the mootness doctrine and dismissing the claims against The Hartford. View "Wilkie v. Hartford" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company in this insurance dispute, holding that the coverage for damage to Plaintiffs' RV was mandated under the plain language of the insurance policy.After Plaintiffs purchased an RV, they purchased a recreational vehicle policy through State Farm. Later, the roof and wall of the RV were damaged. State Farm paid for the roof repair but denied coverage for the wall repair, finding it was not a "covered loss" under the terms of the policy. Plaintiffs then filed this complaint. The Supreme Court granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the issue. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the coverage for the wall repair was a covered expense under the plain language of the policy. View "Kaul v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of ALPS Property & Casualty Insurance Company and declaring that ALPS owed no duty to defend or indemnify Defendants in a malpractice suit, holding that the district court correctly granted summary judgment to ALPS.ALPS brought this action seeking a declaration that it owed no duty to defendant or indemnify Keller, Reynolds, Drake, Johnson & Gillespie, P.C. (the firm) or any of its members for claims Bryan Sandrock, GG&ME, LLC and DRAES, Inc. (collectively, Sandrock) asserted in a malpractice suit against the firm and three of its attorneys. In granting summary judgment for ALPS, the district court held that the firm's ALPS policy did not provide coverage for Sandrock's claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly concluded that there was no coverage under the policy because a member of the firm knew the basis of the legal malpractice claim before the effective date of the policy. View "ALPS Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Keller" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the holding of the district court that Farmers Insurance Exchange had no duty to defend the Insureds in this case but reversed the district court's holding that the duty to indemnify was not justiciable, holding that when there is no duty to defend there cannot be a duty to indemnify.Defendants in two underlying lawsuits (together, the Insureds) tendered the claims to Farmers, with whom they had a homeowners insurance policy. Farmers concluded that coverage was not available because the claims asserted intentional conduct by the Insureds and filed the instant declaratory judgment action to confirm that it did not have a duty to defend or indemnify. The district court granted summary judgment to Farmers, concluding that there was no coverage under the policy and that the issue of indemnification was not justiciable. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) correctly concluded there was no coverage under the policy; (2) did not abuse its discretion in denying the Insureds more time for discovery; but (3) erred in concluding that the issue of whether Farmers had a duty to indemnify was not justiciable. View "Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Wessel" on Justia Law