Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff was severely injured during a single vehicle accident that occurred on a City of Billings road. Plaintiff filed two complaints - one against the City Public Works Director and one against the State, Yellowstone County, and the City. Both complaints alleged negligence in the placement, installation, and maintenance of concrete barriers along the sharp curve where the accident took place. The district court granted Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly granted summary judgment to Defendants on the ground that Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of material fact regarding Defendants’ breach of their alleged duties of care. View "Not Afraid v. Mumford" on Justia Law

Continental Partners bought a lot with two building pads from Yellowstone Development that was part of the Yellowstone Club subdivision. The purchase and sale agreement included an assurance that the houses Continental intended to build on the lot would have ski-in and gravity ski-out access built by the Yellowstone Club. During construction, Continental sold the homes to separate buyers, including the managing member of WLW Realty Partners, LLC. Before construction on the ski-out access on the two homes had begun, the Yellowstone Club filed for bankruptcy protection. The subsequent owners of Yellowstone Club informed the new owners that ski-out access to the homes would not be constructed. WLW Realty filed this action against Continental, alleging, inter alia, negligent misrepresentation and violation of the Montana Consumer Protection Act (MCPA). After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for WLW Realty. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred by (1) imposing liability on Continental for negligent misrepresentation, as WLW Realty failed to satisfy the first and second elements of the tort; and (2) finding that Continental had violated the MCPA, as Continental did not engage in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. View "WLW Realty Partners, LLC v. Continental Partners VIII, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was involved in a vehicle collision with another driver, who admitted fault. At the time of the accident, Plaintiff’s vehicle was insured with Farmers Insurance Exchange under a policy that included underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. After Plaintiff received medical treatment, Plaintiff filed a complaint requesting “all sums due and owing” under her insurance policy with Farmers. During the course of the litigation, Farmers extended settlement offers to Plaintiff, but the case did not settle. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff. Thereafter, Plaintiff moved for attorney fees and nontaxable costs under the insurance exception to the American Rule. The district court denied Plaintiff’s motion, concluding that the insurance exception did not apply to Plaintiff’s attorney fees and related costs. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court incorrectly interpreted Montana law when it relied on only the circumstances surrounding the filing of Plaintiff’s complaint to conclude that Plaintiff did not meet the insurance exception. Remanded for further proceedings to determine whether Farmers forced Plaintiff to assume the burden of legal action to obtain the full benefit of her UIM policy, thus entitling her to attorney fees under the insurance exception. View "Mlekush v. Farmers Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, while in the course of her employment, was injured while the van in which she was riding was struck by a bus owned by Defendant. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant for accident-related injuries. The district court granted Plaintiff partial summary judgment on the issue of liability and ordered that the issues of causation and damages would be determined at trial. The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff for $59,500. Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the district court abused its discretion when it admitted into evidence the opinions and reports of doctors that did not testify at trial. View "Reese v. Stanton" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was on duty as an officer at a bank on December 11, 2004 when he had a physical altercation with Defendant. Plaintiff filed this action seeking damages against Defendant on March 18, 2009. The jury returned a defense verdict, finding that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The district court entered judgment in favor of Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in allowing into evidence a letter from a medical doctor regarding Plaintiff’s medical history and diagnosis; (2) Plaintiff was not entitled to a new trial on the ground that the district court erred in instructing the jury on the statute of limitations governing Plaintiff’s claim; and (3) the jury verdict was supported by substantial evidence. View "Siebken v. Voderberg" on Justia Law

In 1991, Appellant was convicted of two counts of deliberate homicide and sentenced to life imprisonment. Attorney James Goetz attempted to help Appellant with his parole eligibility claim. Displeased with Goetz's assistance, Appellant filed a complaint against Goetz. Appellant was assisted by attorneys Allan Baris and Todd Stubbs in this action. In 2010, Appellant filed a complaint against Goetz, Baris, and Stubbs, asserting claims related to the alleged withholding of discovery in Appellant’s previous action against Goetz. The district court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion (1) by denying Appellant’s motion for a summary judgment hearing; and (2) by denying Appellant’s motion to stay judgment pending completion of discovery. View "Miller v. Goetz" on Justia Law

This controversy arose from cyber-blog exchanges between Plaintiff and Defendant. Plaintiff requested and was granted a temporary order of protection (TOP) against Defendant. The district court affirmed the municipal court’s order granting the TOP, extended the TOP, and sanctioned Defendant as a vexatious litigant through imposing a pre-filing order. The Supreme Court affirmed but struck one condition of the district court’s order, holding that the district court (1) not abuse its discretion in affirming the TOP and remanding to the municipal court for further proceedings; (2) did not err by permanently enjoining Defendant from filing any new pleadings without prior district court approval; but (3) abused its discretion in requiring Defendant to post a $50,000 bond in the event Defendant filed an action or proceeding against a judge or court employee. View "Boushie v. Windsor" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a buy-sell agreement for the purchase of Plaintiff’s home. As agreed upon, Defendant moved into Plaintiff’s home and began paying rent. Before the closing date, however, Defendant notified Plaintiff that he had decided not to purchase the property and had vacated the premises. Plaintiff sued Defendant, alleging constructive fraud, deceit, and negligence. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s tort claims on the ground that they arose strictly out of a breach of contract. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) summary judgment was appropriate on Plaintiff’s constructive fraud and deceit claims; but (2) the district court erred in dismissing Plaintiff’s negligence claim on the ground it arose solely out of duties imposed under the agreement. Remanded. View "Dewey v. Stringer" 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

Abraham and Betty Jean Morrow filed a request for a modification of their home loan, serviced by Bank of America, through the federal Home Affordable Modification Program. Bank of America denied the modification and scheduled a trustee’s sale of the property. The Morrows subsequently filed a complaint against Bank of America based on the bank’s alleged breach of an oral contract for modification of their loan. The district court granted summary judgment to Bank of America, concluding (1) the Morrows’ claims for breach of contract, fraud, and violation of the Montana Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) were barred by the Statute of Frauds; and (2) the Morrows could not succeed on their claims of negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and tortious breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing because Bank of America owed no duty to the Morrows. The Supreme Court reversed as to the negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and violations of MCPA claims, holding that Bank of America owed a duty to the Morrows, genuine issues of material fact existed as to some claims, and the Statute of Frauds did not preclude the remainder of the Morrows’ claims. View "Morrow v. Bank of Am., N.A." on Justia Law