Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Plaintiff injured his left knee when he stepped into his truck. Plaintiff was insured by an automobile insurance policy issued by State Farm that provided automobile medical payments (med pay) coverage. Plaintiff’s health insurer paid nearly all of Plaintiff’s medical bills, but Plaintiff sought from State Farm benefits pursuant to his med pay coverage. State Farm paid the $25.02 that was unpaid at that time and refused to pay further benefits. Plaintiff sued State Farm, alleging breach of the insurance contract for State Farm’s failure to pay the entirety of his medical expenses. The district court granted summary judgment for State Farm, concluding that State Farm was not required to pay Plaintiff’s medical expenses pursuant to his med pay coverage that were previously paid by Plaintiff’s health insurer. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, based on the plain language of the policy, there was no limitation preventing Plaintiff from receiving a duplicate payment for medical expenses under separately purchased, uncoordinated insurance policies. View "Winter v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In 2009, Plaintiff’s floral shop was destroyed by a fire. State Farm Casualty Insurance Company, with whom Plaintiff had an insurance policy for her business, paid Plaintiff the maximum amount available under her policy, which was approximately $21,105. Plaintiff filed suit against State Farm and insurance agent Shawn Ori, alleging that Ori, acting as State Farm’s agent, had a professional duty to ascertain or advise her of the adequate amount of coverage for her business and that his failure to do so constituted professional negligence. State Farm and Ori jointly moved for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff failed to name an expert witness to establish the standard of care applicable to an insurance agent. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, concluding that expert testimony was required to establish the standard of care to which Ori was required to conform. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff’s failure to obtain an expert witness resulted in an insufficiency of proof regarding duty and thus prevented Plaintiff from establishing a prima facie claim of negligence. View "Dulaney v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Petitioner, who was injured while performing her work duties, filed a workers’ compensation claim. Liberty Northwest (Liberty), the insurer for the claim, terminated Petitioner’s temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits after Petitioner revoked releases and authorizations she had previously signed allowing Liberty and its agents to have ex parte communications with her medical care providers. Petitioner filed an action asserting that the statutes relied upon by Liberty to terminate her medical benefits, Mont. Code Ann. 39-71-604 and Mont. Code Ann. 50-16-527, were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Court (WCC) determined that section 39-71-604(3), as applied in Petitioner’s case, violated Petitioner’s constitutional right of privacy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the WCC did not err in concluding that section 39-71-604(3) violated Petitioner’s right of privacy set forth in the Montana Constitution. View "Malcomson v. Liberty Northwest" on Justia Law

In 2010, plaintiffs and Tidyman’s Management Services Inc. (TMSI) filed a complaint against Michael A. Davis and John Maxwell in their capacities as officers and directors of TMSI and/or its subsidiary, Tidyman’s LLC, alleging breach of corporate duties arising out of a merger between TMSI and SuperValu, which created Tidyman’s LLC. Plaintiffs requested punitive damages and attorney fees. The merger at issue occurred despite advice from a financial advisor TMSI had retained that the company should be sold, and the complaint alleged that the directors and officers had misrepresented the merit of the transaction. TMSI is a Washington corporation with its principal place of business in Montana, and was a member of Tidyman’s LLC; employee shareholders owned TMSI. A corporate liability insurance policy was in place that purported to insure Davis and Maxwell against liability incurred in their positions as officers and directors of Tidyman’s LLC. The Policy was to provide a legal defense for Davis and Maxwell throughout the federal ERISA litigation. The issues this case presented to the Montana Supreme Court were: (1) whether the District Court was correct in concluding Montana law, rather than Washington law, applied in this case; (2) whether the District Court erred in concluding that the corporate liability insurer breached its duty to defend without analyzing coverage under the policy; (3) whether the District Court erred in denying the insurer a hearing and discovery on reasonableness and collusion related to the stipulated settlements; and (4) whether the District Court erred by awarding pre-judgment interest, or in its determination of when the interest began accruing. The Montana Court concluded that genuine issues of material fact regarding reasonableness precluded summary judgment on the amount of the stipulated settlements. Accordingly,the Court reversed judgment on the stipulated settlements and remanded this case for further proceedings. The Court affirmed on all other issues. View "Tidyman s et al. v. Davis et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was injured in an accident while driving a business vehicle owned by Mattress King, Inc. and insured by Mountain West Farm Bureau. Plaintiff, whose personal vehicles were insured by Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois, filed a claim with Safeco for medical payment benefits. Plaintiff received medical payment benefits from Safeco and an undisclosed amount of underinsured motorist benefits from Mountain West. Believing Safeco wrongfully refused to pay additional claimed benefits, Plaintiff brought a class action suit against Safeco. The district court ultimately ruled in favor of Safeco. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the “other insurance” clauses in Plaintiff’s automobile liability policy were valid and, as applied in this case, did not constitute de facto subrogation. View "Scheafer v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident caused by another driver. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff sustained both bodily injury and property damage. Plaintiff carried an automobile insurance policy through United Services Automobile Association General Indemnity Company (USAA). USAA paid vehicle repair and car rental costs, after which it sought subrogation for the property damage expenses from the tortfeasor’s automobile liability insurer. Plaintiff subsequently filed an action on behalf of himself and a putative class of plaintiffs, alleging that USAA violated Montana law by seeking subrogation for property damage loss before its insured had been made whole with respect to related personal injuries. The U.S. district court certified a question to the Montana Supreme Court, which answered by holding that Montana law does not prohibit an insurer from exercising its right of subrogation under the limited, specific circumstances presented in the certified question. View "Orden v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n" on Justia Law

Mid-Continent Casualty Company provided comprehensive general liability insurance to Scentry Biologicals, the manufacturer of NoMate, a pest control product designed to protect agricultural crops from destructive insects. Applewood Orchards purchased NoMate from Wilbur-Ellis (W-E), a distributor of NoMate, and used the product on its apple crop to protect against moths. After Applewood discovered significant moth damage, it filed a tort action against Scentry and W-E. Scentry and W-E requested that Mid-Continent defend them under Scentry’s policy. Mid-Continent agreed to defend Scentry, reserving its right to determine its coverage obligations later, but refused to defend W-E. Applewood settled with W-E, and a court ruled against Scentry and in favor of Applewood. Meanwhile, Scentry filed a declaratory judgment against against Mid-Continent seeking declaratory relief on coverage issues. W-E and Applewood intervened. The district court granted summary judgment for and awarded damages to Scentry, Applewood, and W-E. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting the summary judgment motions filed by Scentry, Applewood, and W-E. View "Scentry Biologicals, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co." on Justia Law

Steve Sangwin, a State employee, was a qualified subscriber and beneficiary of the State of Montana Employee Benefits Plan (Plan), which was administered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana (BCBS). Steve's daughter, McKinley, was also a beneficiary under the Plan. This case arose after BCBS denied a preauthorization request for a medical procedure for McKinley on the grounds that the procedure was "experimental for research." Steve and his wife (collectively, the Sangwins) initiated this action by filing an amended complaint setting forth five counts, including a request for certification of a class action. The Sangwins defined class members as other beneficiaries of the Plan who had their employee benefits denied by the State based on the experimental exclusion for research in the past eight years. The district court granted the Sangwins' motion for class certification. The State appealed. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court's order defining the class; but (2) reversed and remanded with respect to the question certified for class treatment, holding that the district court abused its discretion in specifying for class treatment the question of whether the State breached its contract of insurance with the plaintiffs. View "Sangwin v. State" on Justia Law

The Montana Association of Counties Joint Powers Insurance Authority (MACo/JPIA) obtained catastrophic property insurance from Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company to cover damages over $100,000. The Lincoln County Port Authority (Port) insured a building in its industrial facility through the MACo/JPIA self-insured risk pool. After the building's roof collapsed, MACo/JPIA informed the Port that it would no longer insure the building. The building was subsequently destroyed by a fire, and MACo/JPIA and Allianz refused to cover the loss. The Port filed this suit against Allianz. The district court concluded that the Allianz policy insured the Port and awarded $6,060,980 based on the findings of an appraisal panel. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court's determination that Allianz's policy provided coverage for the building; (2) affirmed the district court's refusal to reform the Allianz policy; (3) reversed the district court's award of "replacement cost" for those portions of the building that the Port had slated for demolition; and (4) remanded to allow the district court to calculate post-judgment interest owed to the Port for the damages owed under the policy. View "Lincoln County Port Auth. v. Allianz Global Risks US Ins. Co." on Justia Law