Bad Faith Blog

Montana recognizes several equitable exceptions to the American Rule regarding attorney fees in the area of insurance. The Montana Supreme Court has previously recognized a first-party insured can recover attorney’s fees based on the insurer’s breach of the duty to defend. This limited exception was then expanded to include cases where the insurer disputed coverage and the first-party insured incurred attorney’s fees litigating the coverage dispute and was successful in so doing. Now, in this UIM case involving Tonya Mlekush, the court has further extended the allowance of attorney’s fees to UIM claimants who recover more at trial than the last offer made by the insurer.

Summary: The seller of a home was insured under a Homeowner’s Policy and a Renter’s Policy issued by United Services Automobile Association (USAA). Past basement problems, including flooding, were not disclosed by the seller. The basement flooded after the buyer took possession, and buyer sued the seller. After USAA denied coverage, the parties reached a settlement wherein a consent judgment was entered for $300,000 in favor of Huckins in the underlying case and Huckins then filed suit against USAA for breach of the duty to defend Van Sickle, breach of contract, common law and statutory bad faith, and punitive damages. The District Court held that USAA had not breached its duty to defend, as the claim was not an “occurrence,” and the buyer appealed. The Montana Supreme Court reversed and held USAA had a duty to defend under the renter’s policy.

Summary: Parker’s cabin was damaged when a boulder came down a hillside and crashed into it. The trial court found the earth movement exclusion applied, found there was no coverage, and denied Parker’s Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA) claim. The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed.

Summary: Ibsen, Inc., the owner and operator of an urgent care medical clinic filed a four count complaint against a health insurance company, Caring For Montanans, and others, alleging violations of Montana’s Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA) and alleged common law counts for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The Montana District Court held that all four counts were essentially for alleged violations of the UTPA and found that Montana did not allow a private right of action for such violations. Accordingly, it dismissed the individual and class action claims Ibsen sought to pursue. A unanimous Montana Supreme Court affirmed.

Summary: A tanker truck spilled 6,380 gallons of gasoline, which flowed underneath the highway and beneath the property of multiple homeowners. This case involved the available amount of coverage under primary and excess policies that included both commercial general liability and auto liability coverages. The primary carrier quickly exhausted its $1,000,000 Auto limit through clean-up costs, and when suit was filed the primary carrier tendered the defense to the excess carrier. Excess carrier defended until its $4,000,000 “Per-Occurrence” limit was exhausted and then, believing its applicable limits had been exhausted, re-tendered defense back to the primary carrier. A declaratory judgment action ensued over the amount of available primary and excess coverage. The insureds entered into a “covenant not to execute” agreement that resulted in a stipulated judgment in excess of $13,000,000.