R. C. McDonough

The case concerned a Montana statute providing post-retirement pension adjustments to Teachers' Retirement System beneficiaries who were age 55 or older, or to disability and survivorship beneficiaries regardless of age. Plaintiff Debra Arneson, a 31-year-old beneficiary receiving benefits derived from her deceased mother's retirement, was denied the adjustment solely due to her age, whereas she would have qualified as a survivor if her mother had died while still employed. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court's ruling that the age-based classification violated the equal protection clause of the Montana Constitution. The court applied rational basis review and found the distinction arbitrary because the legislative record and evidence contained no justification for treating retiree beneficiaries differently from survivors or disabled beneficiaries. The decision struck down the age restriction to the extent it denied benefits to qualifying individuals under 55.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved a dispute between Van's Tractor, a Montana farm equipment dealership, and Ford New Holland after the latter acquired Versatile's assets, including the dealership agreement, through bankruptcy proceedings. Van's Tractor claimed that Ford New Holland violated Montana statutes governing dealership terminations (§§ 30-11-802 and -803, MCA) and breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by designating the dealership for attrition without notice, refusing to approve a sale, demanding payment on a disputed bill, and imposing stop-ship status that prevented parts and equipment shipments. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment for Van's Tractor, concluding that the statutes applied to the assigned agreement, that Ford New Holland had violated the statutes and the covenant through its termination procedures and handling of the bill and credit issues, and that the resulting damages, attorney fees, and costs were properly awarded.

business & regulatory

The case involved an insured party suing his auto insurer for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing after the insurer denied an uninsured motorist claim arising from a 1984 motorcycle accident. Following a jury verdict awarding $750,000 in compensatory damages and $750,000 in punitive damages, the insurer appealed, raising issues about the trial court's handling of discovery and evidence. The Montana Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial. It held that the district court erred by compelling production and admitting into evidence materials protected by attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, as well as evidence of the insurer's post-filing litigation tactics and decision to appeal the underlying uninsured motorist verdict. The court reasoned that these evidentiary errors deprived the insurer of a fair trial.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a deputy sheriff who responded to a teenage girl's suicide attempt, administered first aid, and later developed severe anxiety that prevented him from working, leading him to file a workers' compensation claim for mental stress injury. The claim was denied under Montana statute § 39-71-119, MCA (1987), which defines compensable injury to exclude mental stress without a physical component. The Workers' Compensation Court found the statute violated equal protection under Article II, Section 4 of the Montana Constitution by denying benefits based on the nature of the disability. The Montana Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statutory distinction is rationally related to legitimate interests in managing costs, preventing fraud, and ensuring verifiable work-related injuries, and therefore does not violate equal protection.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved an insurance bad faith lawsuit filed by Tom and Jodie Stephens against Safeco Insurance after a fire damaged their auto body shop. The jury found that Safeco breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing, causing $38,333.33 in emotional distress damages to Tom Stephens, but also found that the Stephens breached their own good faith duty and interfered with Safeco, attributing 53% of the wrongful conduct to the Stephens and 47% to Safeco. The trial court denied any recovery to the Stephens on the ground that their greater share of fault barred recovery. The Montana Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Stephens were entitled to the full award because the insurer's bad faith sounded in tort while the insureds' conduct was only a contract breach, and the two could not be comparatively offset under Montana law.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In Young v. Horton, a medical malpractice action, plaintiffs Lucille and Laurence Young claimed that defendant Dr. Vern H. Horton failed to obtain informed consent prior to performing an aorto-bifemoral bypass surgery on Lucille Young, which resulted in her paraplegia due to a complication. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the jury verdict in favor of the defendant. The court reasoned that substantial credible evidence, including the doctor's testimony about discussing risks with the patient and supporting expert opinions, supported the jury's determination on informed consent, and found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's evidentiary rulings regarding medical journal articles or in its handling of trial recesses and voir dire.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case is an appeal by Neal Allen Hage from his conviction for the deliberate homicide of Willie Fleming in Butte, Montana, following a jury trial in the Second Judicial District Court. Hage raised five issues on appeal, including alleged errors by the trial court in communicating with the jury outside his presence, limiting cross-examination on witnesses' prior crimes, excluding evidence about a third party, admitting evidence of his activities the night before the shooting under Rule 404(b) or as res gestae, and refusing to admit evidence of juror misconduct to impeach the verdict. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion on any of the evidentiary or procedural rulings and that the juror misconduct claims involved only internal influences prohibited by Rule 606(b) of the Montana Rules of Evidence. The court's reasoning emphasized that no external prejudicial influences on the jury were shown and that the challenged evidence was properly admitted as part of the crime's res gestae or within the trial court's discretion.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was a consolidated dispute among owners of lots in a Montana lakeside subdivision over the existence, permissiveness, and location of easements providing road access to their properties. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court's bench trial judgment, holding that the Wynias' use of an easement across the Ekmans' and Kellenberger's land was permissive from its inception, that Tacke's easement across the Wynias' lots was not extinguished by prior lot sales, and that the easement route was correctly fixed along the existing "trailer pad" road. The court's reasoning rested on the trial record showing substantial evidence of historical acquiescence, recorded easement agreements, and practical road construction that supported the lower court's factual findings without clear error.

property

This case involved a dispute over ownership of Woods Bay Marina, where Schrammeck claimed a one-third partnership interest in the property and business, and challenged a loan secured by the marina as collateral without his consent after he had filed a lis pendens. The Montana Supreme Court reversed two district court summary judgment orders that had favored the lenders and title company, and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that material issues of fact existed regarding whether the marina was partnership property and whether the lender knew the borrowing partners lacked authority to encumber it. The decision turned on partnership law principles, the effect of the lis pendens, and the validity of the trust indenture under Montana statutes.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

Betty Tonack sued Montana Bank of Billings after her termination at age 49, alleging violations of the Montana Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act and the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act stemming from her placement on probation following a bank audit that uncovered irregularities outside her supervision. The district court ruled in her favor on both claims, awarding damages for future lost wages under the state statute and additional amounts through her expected retirement under the federal statute. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings, examining whether certain findings of fact on the age discrimination claim were clearly erroneous and whether the lower court had correctly interpreted or applied the provisions of both acts. The court's reasoning centered on standards for reviewing factual findings, the credibility of evidence, and the interplay between the state wrongful discharge statute and federal discrimination law, including potential preclusion under Montana Code § 39-2-912.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by Joseph Martelli against his employer, Anaconda-Deer Lodge County, seeking permanent total disability benefits after a neck injury sustained in a work-related car accident. The Workers' Compensation Court dismissed the claim because Martelli had not appealed an earlier final order from the Employment Relations Division of the Department of Labor and Industry, which concluded he could return to a suitable related occupation. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal on appeal, holding that the doctrine of collateral estoppel barred relitigation of the issue since the Division's unappealed order constituted a final judgment on the merits between the same parties. The court reasoned that the elements of collateral estoppel were satisfied, particularly noting that the prior adjudication addressed the identical issue of Martelli's ability to work in a related occupation.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Dew v. Dower, plaintiffs Dew, Dresch, and Posey sued the Dowers for fraudulently inducing them to enter contracts for deed to purchase subdivided tracts of land in Cascade County, Montana, by misrepresenting that improved county-grade access roads would be constructed. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court's liability determination based on evidence that Alice Dower promised roads meeting county specifications to support the $1,000-per-acre price but failed to deliver them, while also upholding that parol evidence was admissible and that the statute of limitations did not bar the claims. The court reversed the damages award, however, and remanded for recalculation on issues including property valuation, prejudgment interest, and the proper recovery amount when one co-tenant sues for tort damages to jointly owned property.

propertytorts & liability

The case concerned claims by Simmons Oil Corporation and Simmons Refining Corporation against Wells Fargo Bank for breach of fiduciary duty, tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and civil conspiracy, stemming from an eight-year loan relationship and the formation of a partnership to operate an oil refinery after Simmons faced financial difficulties. The district court granted summary judgment to Wells Fargo, dismissing all claims. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the bank had established the absence of genuine issues of material fact on certain claims as a matter of law while allowing others to proceed based on the record of the parties' contractual dealings and relationship. The court focused on whether a special relationship existed to support tort claims and whether the bank's actions exceeded its contractual rights.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved the estate of Kathryn Hetherington suing Ford Motor Company for wrongful death after she was fatally injured by her own vehicle. Following extended negotiations, the parties reached a settlement for $185,000, confirmed by a letter from the plaintiffs' counsel accepting the offer in exchange for a full release, but the plaintiffs soon discharged counsel and refused to complete the deal before filing suit. Ford raised the settlement as an affirmative defense and counterclaimed for specific performance. The Montana Supreme Court reversed the district court's rulings, holding that an enforceable interim settlement agreement existed which the plaintiffs had breached, making it specifically enforceable by Ford regardless of whether it was an executory accord or substituted contract.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a dispute over a 1984 contract between Lutey Construction and the State of Montana to renovate a trout hatchery. The State terminated the contract in 1985, leading Lutey to file claims for breach of contract and other issues, which the District Court dismissed on summary judgment primarily due to the statute of limitations under Section 18-1-402, MCA. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the quantum meruit and fraud claims but reversed on the breach of contract, implied warranty of plans and specifications, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, holding that the statute of limitations does not begin until the State provides a final accounting. The core reasoning centered on interpreting the statute of limitations for state contract actions and distinguishing prior precedents like Zook Bros. Construction Company v. State.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a group of workers injured between 1987 and 1991 who sought class certification in the Workers' Compensation Court to pursue claims against numerous insurers for additional disability benefits after statutory caps expired. The Workers' Compensation Court denied class certification, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed this decision. The court reasoned that the proposed class action failed to satisfy the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) of the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly due to insufficient juridical links among the over 200 defendant insurers, who were not all state instrumentalities and lacked any common agreement or relationship binding them.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case concerned disputes over the beneficiaries of several life insurance policies owned by James Eschler after his divorce from Janet Eschler and his subsequent death by suicide. The plaintiffs, including Eschler's children and his fiancée Sharon Ille, argued that they should receive the proceeds based on incomplete change-of-beneficiary forms, a property settlement agreement from the divorce, and other policy actions, while defendant Janet Eschler was the named beneficiary on the policies at issue. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court's grants of summary judgment to Janet Eschler. The court reasoned that the change forms for the Minnesota Mutual policies were never completed or submitted as required, the divorce settlement did not automatically terminate her beneficiary status, and evidence confirmed her as the intended beneficiary on the Mutual Benefit policy despite a clerical error.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over whether defendant Durocher had a legal right to access his property via a trail crossing the plaintiffs Rappolds' land. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court's ruling that Durocher possessed a prescriptive easement. The decision rested on evidence showing that Durocher and his predecessors had used the trail openly, continuously, and adversely for over the statutory period without permission from the Rappolds or their predecessors, including a 1969 affidavit acknowledging such use and testimony from prior owners treating it as a right.

property

This case was a medical malpractice action brought by the personal representative of Louise Falcon against Dr. Hung Cheung and Frances Mahon Deaconess Hospital after Falcon died from internal bleeding caused by migration of a Swan-Ganz catheter inserted to monitor her heart. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the plaintiff's expert witness, Dr. Stone, failed to identify any specific departure from the applicable standard of care by the defendants that proximately caused Falcon's death. Although the expert raised questions about monitoring and transfer decisions, his testimony ultimately did not establish negligence or causation. The court therefore concluded that summary judgment was proper as a matter of law.

healthcaretorts & liability

This case involved a claim for workers' compensation death benefits filed by Jan Loos after her husband Gary was fatally shot during a robbery while operating Waldo's Acton Bar. The Workers' Compensation Court determined that Gary Loos was an employee of the bar rather than its proprietor or an independent contractor, and awarded benefits; the Montana Supreme Court affirmed that ruling. The court examined the parties' oral agreement for the sale and lease of the bar's assets, noting that the liquor license remained in Waldo's name, Loos had not yet paid for the inventory or lease, and Waldo retained some involvement. It applied factors from prior precedent, including the right to control the work, to conclude an employment relationship existed under the facts. The court also addressed but rejected claims for costs and attorney fees.

labor & employmentprocedure