MONTANA AUTHORITY LIBRARY
Montana Auto Insurance Case Authority Library
Search the Montana authorities behind the VictimsGuide citizen library by case name, citation, doctrine or holding. Use the summaries to identify the controlling line of authority, then return to the complete opinion, operative statute and current treatment before legal reliance.
Use the library as a research chain
Start with the legal issue, identify the leading statute and case, read the complete opinion, then check how later courts and legislation changed or limited the rule.
Mandatory Coverage Owner coverage, permissive users, minimum limits and public policy.
Insured Status Named insureds, permissive users, residents and commercial insured status.
UM / UIM Mandatory UM, optional UIM, trigger, settlement, credit and exclusions.
Stacking Multiple policies, premiums, current § 33-23-203 and anti-stacking.
Claims Handling UTPA, reasonable investigation, reasonable basis and advance payment.
Policy Interpretation Coverage grants, exclusions, ambiguity and reasonable expectations.
Duty to Defend Potential coverage, reservations, declaratory relief and defense counsel.
Insurance Agents Requested coverage, undertaking, applications and failure to procure.
Failure to Settle Excess exposure and good-faith consideration of settlement opportunities.
Settlement & Release Formation, releases, partial settlements, rescission and UIM preservation.
Subrogation Made whole, recovery costs, MedPay and category-specific subrogation.
Crash Evidence Police reports, reconstruction, preservation and spoliation.
Damages Medical damages, earning capacity, course of life and property loss.
Wrongful Death Survivors, estate claims, survival damages and allocation.
Government Claims State and political-subdivision procedure and limitation rules.
Filter by doctrine
Montana Supreme Court authorities
Gay v. Lavina State Bank
61 Mont. 449, 202 P. 753
Foundational procurement authority: an insurance agent or broker instructed to obtain specific insurance can be liable for loss caused by failure to procure that coverage.
Related: Insurance Agents
Independent Milk & Cream Co. v. Aetna Life Insurance Co.
68 Mont. 152, 216 P. 1109
Early Montana defense authority underlying the principle that an insurer that unjustifiably refuses a required defense can become responsible for resulting defense costs and judgments.
Related: Duty to Defend
Westfall v. Motors Insurance Corp.
140 Mont. 564, 374 P.2d 96
A release is a contract and may be challenged under recognized contract-rescission principles, including qualifying fraud or mistake.
Related: Settlement & Release
Spackman v. Ralph M. Parsons Co.
147 Mont. 500, 414 P.2d 918
States Montana’s traditional mitigation rule: an injured person must act reasonably to limit loss but need not take unreasonable action or endanger health.
Related: Crash Damages
Thomas v. Whiteside
148 Mont. 394, 421 P.2d 449
Foundational authority distinguishing diminished future earning capacity from wages already lost.
Related: Crash Damages
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Thompson
150 Mont. 182, 433 P.2d 795
Early Montana authority distinguishing the broader duty to defend from the narrower duty to indemnify.
Related: Duty to Defend
Ostermiller v. Parker
152 Mont. 337, 451 P.2d 515
Useful non-owned and regular-use authority applying policy language where a vehicle available for regular household use did not qualify under the asserted non-owned-auto protection.
Related: Borrowed & Rental Vehicles
Fowler v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
153 Mont. 74, 454 P.2d 76
Montana adopted a good-faith rather than strict-liability approach to insurer liability for rejecting a liability settlement opportunity that later results in an excess judgment.
Related: Failure to Settle
Rasmussen v. Sibert
153 Mont. 286, 456 P.2d 835
Recognizes qualifying compensation for pain and suffering and the destruction of the ability to pursue an established course of life.
Related: Crash Damages
Gammel v. Dees
161 Mont. 159, 505 P.2d 122
Recognizes qualifying loss-of-use damages during a reasonable repair or replacement period; denied the claimed award there because a replacement vehicle was obtained the next day.
Related: Crash Damages
Skauge v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co.
172 Mont. 521, 565 P.2d 628
Foundational Montana made-whole authority giving the insured priority to obtain full compensation for the covered loss and recovery costs before ordinary insurer subrogation.
Related: MedPay & Subrogation
Jacobson v. Implement Dealers Mutual Insurance Co.
196 Mont. 542, 640 P.2d 908
Early first-party motorist-coverage authority in the doctrinal line later used to distinguish mandatory UM from optional UIM and to analyze public-policy limitations on coverage restrictions.
Related: UM/UIM
Swanson v. Champion International Corp.
197 Mont. 509, 646 P.2d 1166
Distinguishes survivor wrongful-death damages from survival damages belonging to the decedent’s estate.
Related: Wrongful Death
Lee v. Andrews
204 Mont. 527, 667 P.2d 919
Reaffirms liability where an insurance agent undertakes to obtain specific coverage and fails to carry out the insured’s instructions.
Related: Insurance Agents
Dawson v. Hill & Hill Truck Lines
206 Mont. 325, 671 P.2d 589
Fatal highway-crash authority recognizing parental grief, sorrow and mental anguish as compensable wrongful-death losses.
Related: Wrongful Death
Bill Atkin Volkswagen, Inc. v. McClafferty
213 Mont. 99, 689 P.2d 1237
Montana’s mandatory automobile-insurance framework required owner-provided liability protection for a permissive user of a dealer loaner; another policy did not eliminate the owner’s statutory obligation.
Related: Required Insurance · Borrowed Vehicles
Gibson v. Western Fire Insurance Co.
210 Mont. 267, 682 P.2d 725
Leading Montana excess-exposure authority. An insurer that in bad faith fails to accept an appropriate within-limits third-party settlement opportunity can face liability beyond policy limits.
Related: Failure to Settle
Johnson v. Marias River Electric Cooperative
211 Mont. 518, 687 P.2d 668
Important authority concerning children’s wrongful-death interests after the death of a parent and allocation outside ordinary probate succession mechanics.
Related: Wrongful Death
Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Janzer
215 Mont. 260, 697 P.2d 460
Implied permission can present a factual question. Where a factual dispute exists over permissive use, summary judgment on insured status and defense coverage may be inappropriate.
Related: Who Is an Insured?
McGlynn v. Safeco Insurance Companies of America
216 Mont. 379, 701 P.2d 735
Invalidated a physical-contact requirement that conflicted with Montana’s mandatory uninsured-motorist protection in a phantom-vehicle claim.
Related: UM/UIM
Hanson v. Oljar
231 Mont. 272, 752 P.2d 187
Automobile-release authority enforcing the clear general release presented there, including known-and-unknown-injury language.
Related: Settlement & Release
R.H. Grover, Inc. v. Flynn Insurance Co.
238 Mont. 278, 777 P.2d 338
A procurement duty arises when the client requests particular insurance and the agent undertakes to obtain it; absent the required request and undertaking there is no negligent-failure-to-procure claim.
Related: Insurance Agents
Horace Mann Insurance Co. v. Hampton
235 Mont. 354, 767 P.2d 343
Important omnibus-coverage authority addressing initial permission and a permittee’s departure from the contemplated scope of vehicle use.
Related: Who Is an Insured?
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hankinson — First Appeal
244 Mont. 1, 795 P.2d 480
First appeal in the Hankinson litigation addressing automobile permission and statutory coverage issues involving use of a non-owned vehicle.
Related: Borrowed Vehicles
Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Co. v. Blair
250 Mont. 52, 817 P.2d 1156
Useful resident-household authority emphasizing actual living arrangements and intent when interpreting household-resident language.
Related: Who Is an Insured?
Bennett v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
261 Mont. 386, 862 P.2d 1146
Major UIM stacking authority invalidating anti-stacking restrictions under the law applicable to separately purchased coverages and emphasizing that an insurer should not retain separate consideration while defeating the promised protection.
Related: Stacking
Hetherington v. Ford Motor Co.
257 Mont. 395, 849 P.2d 1039
Unconditional offer and unconditional acceptance of agreed material settlement terms can create a binding agreement before the later release paperwork is executed.
Related: Settlement & Release
DeTienne Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Co.
266 Mont. 184, 879 P.2d 704
Reaffirms insured priority under Montana’s made-whole doctrine and requires consideration of attorney fees and recovery costs before insurer subrogation.
Related: MedPay & Subrogation
Dean v. Austin Mutual Insurance Co.
263 Mont. 386, 869 P.2d 256
Reasonableness under § 33-18-242 generally presents a fact question where it depends on disputed evidence and credibility rather than a purely legal coverage issue.
Related: Claims Handling
Ulrigg v. Jones
274 Mont. 215, 907 P.2d 937
Distinguishes the statutory obligation to insure a vehicle from independent tort liability; required insurance does not itself make an owner vicariously liable for another driver’s negligence.
Related: Required Insurance
Chilberg v. Rose
273 Mont. 414, 903 P.2d 1377
Stacking requires multiple applicable coverages. A claimant cannot aggregate a policy under which the claimant does not qualify as an insured.
Related: Stacking
Sorensen v. Farmers Insurance Exchange
279 Mont. 291, 927 P.2d 1002
An unauthorized tortfeasor settlement does not automatically forfeit UIM protection; the UIM carrier must demonstrate material prejudice to its subrogation rights.
Related: Settlement · UM/UIM
Fillinger v. Northwestern Agency, Inc.
283 Mont. 71, 938 P.2d 1347
Reaffirms an agent’s duty to procure requested insurance, allows evidence of the procurement discussions, and rejects treating the insured’s duty to read as an inflexible absolute rule.
Related: Insurance Agents
Augustine v. Simonson
283 Mont. 259, 940 P.2d 116
Rejects literal exhaustion of liability limits as an absolute prerequisite to UIM benefits; the UIM carrier receives the appropriate liability-limit credit.
Related: UM/UIM · Settlement
Stutzman v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America
284 Mont. 372, 945 P.2d 32
Clear limitations in optional UIM coverage may be enforced when they do not conflict with controlling Montana statute or public policy.
Related: Policy Interpretation
Ruckdaschel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
285 Mont. 395, 948 P.2d 700
Leading MedPay stacking authority involving separate premiums and a named insured injured as a pedestrian.
Related: Stacking
Ridley v. Guaranty National Insurance Co.
286 Mont. 325, 951 P.2d 987
Foundational UTPA authority requiring payment of reasonably clear, undisputed third-party medical damages without conditioning payment on a full and final release.
Related: Claims Handling
Farmers Alliance Mutual Insurance Co. v. Holeman
1998 MT 155, 289 Mont. 312, 961 P.2d 114
Under the law then applicable, permitted stacking of UIM and MedPay coverages for which separate premiums were charged and addressed the effect of a tortfeasor release on the UIM claim.
Related: Stacking
Dakota Fire Insurance Co. v. Oie
1998 MT 288
Certified-question authority addressing UM/UIM coordination and stacking of separately purchased UM coverage under Montana law.
Related: Stacking
American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Livengood
1998 MT 329
Enforced clear non-owned-auto language where Montana’s mandatory statutory liability floor otherwise was satisfied.
Related: Borrowed Vehicles
Thomas v. Northwestern National Insurance Co.
1998 MT 343
Important authority concerning an insurer’s affirmative obligation to provide adequate notice when renewal changes reduce or alter coverage.
Related: Policy Interpretation
Oliver v. Stimson Lumber Co.
1999 MT 328, 297 Mont. 336, 993 P.2d 11
Foundational Montana spoliation authority. Direct-party evidence destruction ordinarily is addressed through litigation remedies; qualifying negligent spoliation by a third party can support a separate cause of action under demanding elements.
Related: Crash Investigation
Watters v. Guaranty National Insurance Co.
2000 MT 150
Develops the Ridley framework concerning reasonably clear third-party losses and the insurer’s reasonable-basis defense.
Related: Claims Handling
Infinity Insurance Co. v. Dodson
2000 MT 287, 302 Mont. 209, 14 P.3d 487
A statutory vehicle liability minimum is not automatically multiplied merely because multiple insureds allegedly committed independent negligent acts.
Related: Required Insurance
In re Rules of Professional Conduct & Insurer-Imposed Billing Rules
2000 MT 110, 299 Mont. 321, 2 P.3d 806
Under Montana professional-conduct rules, the insured is the client of insurer-appointed defense counsel; insurer billing or control procedures cannot override counsel’s professional duties to that client.
Related: Duty to Defend
Magart v. Schank
2000 MT 279
Automobile-injury authority illustrating that a future earning-capacity award requires sufficient evidence; injury alone does not compel an award for speculative future occupational loss.
Related: Crash Damages
Lee v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co.
2001 MT 59
Vehicle ownership alone did not automatically make a co-owner a named insured for UIM purposes; insured status must be determined from the policy and legally operative facts.
Related: Who Is an Insured?
Swanson v. Hartford Insurance Co.
2002 MT 81, 309 Mont. 269, 46 P.3d 584
Reaffirms Montana public policy requiring full compensation of the insured’s covered loss and recovery costs before ordinary insurer subrogation, notwithstanding conflicting ordinary policy wording.
Related: MedPay & Subrogation
Payne v. Eighth Judicial District Court
2002 MT 313, 313 Mont. 118, 60 P.3d 469
Separates the estate’s survival claim for future earnings from wrongful-death financial support that survivors reasonably would have received.
Related: Wrongful Death
Hardy v. Progressive Specialty Insurance Co.
2003 MT 85, 315 Mont. 107, 67 P.3d 892
Major UIM/stacking decision rejecting provisions that effectively defeated separately paid-for coverage and discussing declarations, ambiguity and reasonable expectations.
Related: Stacking
Mitchell v. State Farm Insurance Co.
2003 MT 102
Applies Montana’s separately paid first-party coverage and public-policy analysis in the UM context.
Related: Stacking
Shilhanek v. D-2 Trucking, Inc.
2003 MT 122
Applies Ridley in a serious commercial-trucking claim involving undisputed medical expenses and a demand for a full release.
Related: Claims Handling
Lierboe v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
2003 MT 174
No stacking issue exists unless multiple coverages actually apply. Coverage and insured status are threshold questions before aggregation.
Related: Stacking
Dambrowski v. Champion International Corp.
2003 MT 233, 317 Mont. 218, 76 P.3d 1080
Reaffirms Montana contract principles governing completed settlement agreements and subsequent formal settlement processing.
Related: Settlement & Release
Lockhead v. Weinstein
2003 MT 360
Manifested assent controls settlement formation; an undisclosed subjective intention not to be bound generally does not defeat an otherwise completed agreement.
Related: Settlement & Release
Henricksen v. State
2004 MT 20
Explains that impairment of an established course of life is conceptually different from diminished earning capacity and can be analyzed separately from other noneconomic harm.
Related: Crash Damages
Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Co. v. Staples
2004 MT 108, 321 Mont. 99, 90 P.3d 381
Leading modern duty-to-defend authority: absent an unequivocal demonstration that the claim falls outside coverage, the insurer must defend.
Related: Duty to Defend
Dempsey v. Allstate Insurance Co.
2004 MT 391
Addresses retroactive effect of stacking precedent on qualifying nonfinal claims while protecting matters already conclusively resolved.
Related: Stacking
Renville v. Fredrickson
2004 MT 324, 324 Mont. 86, 101 P.3d 773
Reinforces Montana’s unified wrongful-death action and rejects competing separate survivor suits arising from the same death.
Related: Wrongful Death
Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. Ribi Immunochem Research, Inc.
2005 MT 50, 326 Mont. 174, 108 P.3d 469
Useful proof framework: insured establishes basic coverage, insurer establishes an exclusion, and the insured ordinarily establishes an exception restoring coverage.
Related: Policy Interpretation
Mecca v. Farmers Insurance Exchange
2005 MT 260
UIM trigger analysis requires identification of all applicable liability insurance; the policy shown on the driver’s insurance card may not be the entire liability layer.
Related: Finding Coverage
Hern v. Safeco Insurance Co. of Illinois
2005 MT 301, 329 Mont. 347, 125 P.3d 597
Recognizes qualifying parental grief and emotional-loss claims involving an adult child and applies a heightened relationship showing to a distinct adult-child consortium theory.
Related: Wrongful Death
In re Estate of Lambert
2006 MT 229, 333 Mont. 444, 143 P.3d 426
Survival damages belong to the estate; where death is instantaneous, no survival cause of action arises in favor of the decedent before death.
Related: Wrongful Death
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Gibson
2007 MT 153
MedPay stacking authority emphasizing Montana’s concern with insurers accepting valuable consideration for coverage and then denying the paid-for benefit.
Related: Stacking
Swank Enterprises, Inc. v. All Purpose Services, Ltd.
2007 MT 57, 336 Mont. 197, 154 P.3d 52
Where exclusionary wording reasonably supports competing interpretations, Montana construes ambiguity narrowly against the insurer; also important for additional-insured defense coverage.
Related: Policy Interpretation
Lorang v. Fortis Insurance Co.
2008 MT 252
Important insurance UTPA authority concerning insurer conduct, contractual benefits, statutory claims practices and extracontractual damages.
Related: Claims Handling
Newbury v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
2008 MT 156
Reasonable expectations do not create coverage directly contrary to unmistakably clear policy language absent another controlling statutory or public-policy basis.
Related: Policy Interpretation
Robertus v. Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Co.
2008 MT 207
A substantial UIM coverage reduction on renewal required adequate affirmative notice. The declarations and changed premium alone were insufficient under the facts; the decision also revisits Montana’s UIM stacking history.
Related: Stacking · Policy Interpretation
Revelation Industries, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.
2009 MT 123, 350 Mont. 184, 206 P.3d 919
The insurer could not ignore material potentially coverage-triggering information actually supplied by its insured merely because the complaint omitted it; the case does not impose an unlimited duty to search for every conceivable outside fact.
Related: Duty to Defend
Giacomelli v. Scottsdale Insurance Co.
2009 MT 418
Applies Montana’s reasonable-expectations doctrine while enforcing clear exclusions where an expectation of contrary coverage was not objectively reasonable.
Related: Policy Interpretation
Monroe v. Cogswell Agency
2010 MT 134, 356 Mont. 417, 234 P.3d 79
Reaffirms the agent’s duty to obtain specifically requested insurance while rejecting a generalized heightened advisory duty in the absence of the necessary relationship and facts.
Related: Insurance Agents
Goettel v. Estate of Ballard
2010 MT 140, 356 Mont. 527, 234 P.3d 99
Reaffirmed Gibson’s excess-exposure principles and held that a probate claims bar protecting estate assets did not necessarily eliminate pursuit of liability insurance or the insurer’s own excess exposure.
Related: Failure to Settle
Park Place Apartments, LLC v. Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Co.
2010 MT 270
Modern restatement of Montana policy construction: ordinary meaning, whole-policy analysis, genuine ambiguity and narrow construction of exclusions.
Related: Policy Interpretation
Steadele v. Colony Insurance Co.
2011 MT 208
Applies ordinary meaning, strict construction of exclusions and the distinction between genuine ambiguity and clear contract language.
Related: Policy Interpretation
LaMere v. Farmers Insurance Exchange
2011 MT 272
Later stacking precedent did not reopen a UM claim that already had been settled and fully released; useful for settlement finality rather than present stacking entitlement.
Related: Settlement
Murphy v. Home Depot
2012 MT 23, 364 Mont. 27, 270 P.3d 72
Important limit on Hetherington. Agreement on money did not create a binding settlement where the parties had not agreed on the essential scope of claims to be released.
Related: Settlement & Release
Parish v. United Financial Casualty
2012 MT 116
Upheld the anti-stacking result where a single UM premium and the insurer’s statutory rate/policy structure satisfied the governing law.
Related: Stacking
Bailey v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
2013 MT 119
An insurance producer may be liable for failing to procure requested UIM protection. Montana rejected an absolute duty-to-read rule as an automatic bar to the procurement claim.
Related: Insurance Agents
Newman v. Scottsdale Insurance Co.
2013 MT 125
Modern duty-to-defend authority applying Montana’s broad potential- coverage principles and addressing the proper use of facts beyond the pleading.
Related: Duty to Defend
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Schwan
2013 MT 216, 371 Mont. 192, 308 P.3d 48
Reaffirms that the defense duty is broader than indemnity. A mixed action can trigger defense of the entire action, but the facts there did not establish breach merely because separate additional counsel had not been retained.
Related: Duty to Defend
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Freyer
2013 MT 301, 372 Mont. 191, 312 P.3d 403
Distinguishes defense from indemnity and rejects strict liability for every rejected policy-limits opportunity. The implied duty to consider third-party settlement remains tied to good faith and coverage.
Related: Failure to Settle
Fisher v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
2013 MT 208, 371 Mont. 147, 305 P.3d 861
Enforced a clear family-member exclusion in optional umbrella coverage where no statute, public policy or objectively reasonable expectation invalidated it.
Related: Policy Interpretation
McVey v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co.
2013 MT 346
Eventual payment does not automatically erase actionable earlier claim handling; important authority on reasonable investigation of a UM/UIM claim.
Related: Claims Handling
Horace Mann Insurance Co. v. Hanke
2013 MT 320, 372 Mont. 350, 312 P.3d 429
Addresses reservation-of-rights reimbursement issues. Any recoupment theory requires careful attention to timely, explicit notice and the particular costs or settlement payments at issue.
Related: Duty to Defend
Wheaton v. Bradford
2013 MT 121, 370 Mont. 93, 300 P.3d 1162
Crash-reconstruction authority affirming qualified reconstruction testimony and computer simulation after examining factual foundation and scientific reliability.
Related: Crash Investigation
In re Estate of Bennett
2013 MT 230
Wrongful-death survivors are not limited mechanically to intestate heirs. Parents of an adult decedent may possess qualifying wrongful-death interests even when the children inherit the estate.
Related: Wrongful Death
Van Orden v. United Services Automobile Association
2014 MT 45, 374 Mont. 62, 318 P.3d 1042
Permits category-specific subrogation where a discrete, readily ascertainable loss has been completely compensated under separate coverage for which a separate premium was paid.
Related: MedPay & Subrogation
Spotted Horse v. BNSF Railway Co.
2015 MT 148, 379 Mont. 314, 350 P.3d 52
A sophisticated litigant should not unilaterally decide potentially relevant evidence lacks value and permit it to be destroyed before an adversary can evaluate it.
Related: Crash Investigation
American States Insurance Co. v. Flathead Janitorial & Rug Services, Inc.
2015 MT 239, 380 Mont. 308, 355 P.3d 735
Under a corporate commercial-auto policy, being listed as a driver did not make the claimant an insured for UIM or MedPay when she was not occupying a covered auto.
Related: Work & Commercial Vehicles
Meek v. Eighth Judicial District Court
2015 MT 130
Important pre-2021 medical-damages authority. Its treatment of billed medical charges belongs to the former statutory/common-law framework and must not be used as the current rule for claims accruing after April 30, 2021.
Related: Crash Damages
Estate of Gleason v. Central United Life Insurance Co.
2015 MT 140
Reviews Montana’s reasonable-basis cases and explains when reasonableness may present a factual question versus a legal question capable of resolution without a jury.
Related: Claims Handling
J & C Moodie Properties, LLC v. Deck
2016 MT 301, 385 Mont. 382, 384 P.3d 466
Wrongful refusal to defend can permit an insured to protect itself, but a stipulated settlement or judgment remains subject to a reasonableness determination before being imposed on the insurer.
Related: Duty to Defend
Fire Insurance Exchange v. Weitzel
2016 MT 113
Modern authority on clear policy language, exclusions and the limits of reasonable-expectations arguments.
Related: Policy Interpretation
In re Estate of Woody v. Big Horn County
2016 MT 180, 384 Mont. 185, 376 P.3d 127
Fatal vehicle-crash authority addressing claims against a county and the interaction of political-subdivision presentment and limitation rules.
Related: Government Vehicle Crashes
Huckins v. United Services Automobile Association
2017 MT 143
An insurer had a duty to defend at least until obtaining a ruling that coverage did not exist; Montana again identified reservation of rights plus declaratory relief as the prudent course in a genuine coverage dispute.
Related: Duty to Defend
Montana State University-Bozeman v. First Judicial District Court
2018 MT 220, 392 Mont. 458, 426 P.3d 541
Defines Montana’s preservation-duty framework: adverse litigation must be reasonably foreseeable under an objective, fact-specific standard; an abstract possibility of litigation is insufficient.
Related: Crash Investigation
Cross v. Warren
2019 MT 51
Distinguishes personal first-party UM/UIM/MedPay protection from third-party liability coverage associated with the insured vehicle and rejects automatic stacking of multiple liability limits.
Related: Stacking
High Country Paving, Inc. v. United Fire & Casualty Co.
2019 MT 297
Modern authority concerning coverage, defense obligations and the interaction between policy interpretation and Montana insurer remedies.
Related: Duty to Defend
Turner v. City of Dillon
2020 MT 83, 399 Mont. 481, 461 P.3d 122
Political-subdivision claims do not simply use the same procedural calendar governing claims against the State of Montana; local-government presentment and limitation rules require separate analysis.
Related: Government Vehicle Crashes
Goss v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co.
2021 MT 289
Confirms that MedPay and UIM are optional rather than mandated Montana auto coverages. Invalidated the challenged UIM exclusion while upholding the MedPay exclusion under the distinct coverage analysis.
Related: UM/UIM
Wilkie v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co.
2021 MT 221
Raised pre-suit third-party coverage-disclosure issues, but the Supreme Court resolved the appeal on mootness and expressly did not decide the merits of a generalized disclosure duty.
Related: Coverage Disclosure
National Indemnity Co. v. State
2021 MT 300
Major modern defense case cautioning that recoupment authorities such as Ribi and Hanke are fact-specific. The majority recognized a recoupment path where the insurer gives timely, explicit and adequate notice, but the decision should not be converted into an automatic ordinary-insured reimbursement rule.
Related: Duty to Defend
Gibson v. United States
2021 MT 309
Confirms the April 30, 2021 dividing line for Montana’s new medical-damages statute. Gibson’s older claim was decided under the pre-amendment framework.
Related: Crash Damages
Depositors Insurance Co. v. Sandidge
2022 MT 33, 407 Mont. 385, 504 P.3d 477
Held the vehicle crash report offered there to establish liability inadmissible hearsay; the decision does not create a categorical rule that all underlying police-created evidence is unusable.
Related: Crash Investigation
Johnson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
2025 MT 194
Reaffirms that attorney fees and recovery costs matter to Montana’s made-whole calculation for losses the insurer was paid to cover; clarifies Van Orden and rejects using costs of recovering a distinct uncovered loss automatically to postpone subrogation on the covered category.
Related: MedPay & Subrogation
Fahrnow v. E-5 Oilfield Services
2025 MT 220, 424 Mont. 229, 577 P.3d 1107
Reversed summary judgment where material comparative-negligence issues remained and addressed alleged loss of commercial-truck EDR, telematics and employment evidence without finding the showing needed for the requested default spoliation sanction.
Related: Crash Investigation · Comparative Fault
Federal courts applying Montana law
These decisions can be useful applications or predictions of Montana law. They are displayed separately because they are not Montana Supreme Court holdings.
Jessen v. O’Daniel
210 F. Supp. 317 (D. Mont. 1962)
Influential early formulation of the good-faith duty arising when a liability insurer controls settlement. Later Montana Supreme Court decisions, including Fowler, Gibson and Freyer, discuss this framework.
Related: Failure to Settle
Bateman v. National Union Fire Insurance Co.
423 F. App’x 763 (9th Cir. 2011)
Federal application of Montana law rejecting the asserted generalized theory that the UTPA itself compelled the requested pre-suit insurance disclosure to a third-party claimant.
Related: Coverage Disclosure
Amberg v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America
D. Mont., No. 2:24-cv-00070-DLC, July 1, 2025
Recent federal application concluding that Montana’s UTPA does not create a universal third-party duty to disclose policy limits, coverage explanations or defense expenditures merely upon request.
Related: Coverage Disclosure
Lohrke v. American Family
D. Mont., No. 2:24-cv-00011-BMM, Oct. 15, 2025
Persuasive application of Montana stacking law involving separate premiums, UM and MedPay, anti-stacking language and current § 33-23-203.
Related: Stacking
Research discipline
- Stacking cases must be reconciled with current MCA § 33-23-203.
- Older medical-damages cases must be separated from claims accruing on or after April 30, 2021 under MCA § 27-1-308.
- Third-party settlement opportunities must account for current MCA § 33-18-251 when a statutory time-limited demand is used.
- UTPA private claims must be checked against the subsections actually made privately actionable by MCA § 33-18-242.
- Federal decisions applying Montana law are persuasive applications, not substitutes for controlling Montana Supreme Court precedent.
- A case summary deliberately omits procedural and factual details that can materially alter the scope of the holding.
- If authority for a proposition was not located, use “not identified in the completed official-source survey” rather than claiming categorically that no authority exists.
Cases are authorities, not slogans.
Find the doctrinal chain here. Then read the complete opinion and the current statute it interprets. Montana automobile-insurance law has changed through both judicial decisions and legislation, so coverage type, policy language, statutory version, facts and procedural posture all matter.
Public-interest education only. No legal services offered or accepted. No attorney-client relationship created.
Migration source: https://www.victimsguide.com/mt-case-authority-library. Verify current Montana law and official authority before reliance.
VictimsGuide 