Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court accepted certification of two questions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit regarding whether a charitable write-off of medical expenses may be recovered as damages or is subject to the collateral source rule.Specifically, the Supreme Court concluded (1) for a claim that accrued prior to the effective date of Mont. Code Ann. 27-1-308 a plaintiff in a survival action may not recover the reasonable value of medical care and related services when the costs of such services or care are wholly written off under the provider's charitable care program and the patient receives a zero-balance bill; and (2) for a claim that accrued prior to the effective date of Mont. Code Ann. 27-1-308, such a charitable care write-off is not a collateral source within the meaning of section 27-1-307. View "Gibson v. United States" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the district court that the State was covered by an insurance policy it had with National Indemnity Company (National) for claims made against the State for injury and death resulting from asbestos exposure but reversed the district court's rulings regarding qualifying "occurrences" under the policy, holding that remand was required for further consideration of these issues.This insurance dispute followed litigation between the State and claimants who alleged that they were harmed by the State's failure to warn them of the hazards of asbestos exposure over years of mining and milling operations in Libby, Montana. National insured the State against general liability from 1973-1975. National filed this action seeking determinations that it had no obligation to defend the State or to cover the claims. The State concluded that National breached its duty to defend the State but disagreed with the district court's determination of the number of "occurrences" eligible for coverage under the policy, holding that remand was required for further factual findings. View "National Indemnity Co. v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the orders of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant and dismissing Plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim with prejudice, holding that the district court erred.Defendant filed a civil complaint on behalf of Whitefish Credit Union (WCU) alleging that Plaintiff committed fraud when she foreclosed on certain property. Defendant also reported the fraud allegations to federal law enforcement authorities, resulting in Plaintiff's indictment. Before Plaintiff's resulting criminal charges and civil fraud claims were eventually dismissed Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy and received a discharge. Plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit alleging malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and constructive fraud based on Defendant's involvement in initiating fraud proceedings against her. Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that Plaintiff was judicially estopped from pursuing her claims because she failed to disclose the claims as assets in her personal bankruptcy. The district court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) erred in granting summary judgment on Plaintiff's civil malicious prosecution claim; and (2) properly granted summary judgment to the extent it applied judicial estoppel to Plaintiff's claim as premised on the criminal charges that were brought against her. View "McAtee v. Morrison & Frampton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court granting Defendant summary judgment on Plaintiff's asserted negligence (liquor liability) and negligence (premises liability) claims, holding that the district court erred in concluding that Plaintiff's co-pled negligence (premises liability) claim was subject to the two-year Montana Dram Shop Act statute of limitations. See Mont. Code Ann. 27-1-710(6).Plaintiff pled two base tort claims against Defendant - a negligence (liquor liability) claim and a separate negligence (premises liability) claim. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant, concluding that both of Plaintiff's base tort claims were time-barred by the two-year Dram Shop Act statute of limitations. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that the district court erroneously concluded that section 27-1-710(6) time-barred Plaintiff's negligence (premises liability) claim. View "Babcock v. Casey's Management, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court accepted a state law question certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit regarding whether, under Montana law, parasitic emotional distress damages are available for an underlying negligence claim for personal property damage or loss, answering the question in the negative.After Plaintiffs took their vehicle to Costco's tire center a Costco employee gave the keys to a man who falsely claimed to be Plaintiffs' son. Plaintiffs found their vehicle, but several items had been stolen. Plaintiffs sued, bringing claims of bailment and negligence. In instructing the jury, the district court told jurors that if they found for Plaintiffs on the negligence claim, they must determine the amount of damages to compensate them for any parasitic damages caused. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs. Costco appealed the award for non-property damages, arguing that the verdict was premised on the federal district court's incorrect instruction for consideration of parasitic emotional distress damages arising from the loss of personal property. The Ninth Circuit then certified the question at issue. The Supreme Court answered that parasitic emotional distress damages are not available for an underlying negligence claim for personal property damage or loss. View "Childress v. Costco Wholesale Corp." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Bob Walden and Sylvan Walden on their negligence suit against Yellowstone Electric Company (YECO), holding that the district court did not err.The Waldens were moving cattle north on a portion of Montana Highway 24 when Thomas Newell, who was driving a truck owned by YECO, ran into the cattle, killing ten heifers. The Waldens brought suit alleging negligence. The district court determined that Newell and YECO, as Newell's employer, were negligent as a matter of law in causing the death of the Waldens' cows. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below. View "Walden v. Yellowstone Electric Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that Erik Miller was justified when he used deadly force against Nicholas Tyson Frazier, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion.Frazier, who was suicidal, was shot by Miller, a police officer, in his home after he pointed his gun at the Miller. The Estate brought this complaint against Miller alleging assault, wrongful death, negligence, and a violation of Frazier's rights under the Montana Constitution. The district court entered judgment in favor of Miller, holding that Miller's use of force was justified. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by refusing to submit a separate constitutional tort theory to the jury; (2) the special verdict form clearly and fairly presented the jury with the ultimate questions of fact; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to record all sidebar discussions of evidentiary objections. View "Estate of Frazier v. Miller" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying BNSF Railway Company summary judgment and entering final judgment in favor of Robert Dannels, holding that the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) does not preempt an injured railroad employee's state law bad faith claims.Dannels was employed by BNSF when he suffered a disabling back and spine injury. Dannels sued BNSF under FELA to recover damages, and the jury returned a verdict in Dannels' favor. Dannels subsequently filed claims for bad faith and punitive damages against BNSF. The district court entered final judgment against BNSF. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly determined that the FELA does not preempt a railroad worker's right to seek redress for all bad faith conduct in the adjustment of a claim. View "Dannels v. BNSF" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the jury's verdict that Travis Elbert was not negligent when he struck Diane Wenger with his vehicle as she was crossing Main Street in East Helena after dark, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling in limine to limit witness testimony on Montana statutes or on ultimate legal conclusions; (2) publication of Wenger's irrelevant, private health information to the jury was improperly allowed, but Defendant was not entitled to a trial trial on this basis; and (3) any potential error by the district court in prohibiting Wenger from arguing an approved jury instruction in closing was harmless. View "Wenger v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Workers' Compensation Court that Mont. Code Ann. 39-71-703(2) did not violate Appellant's right to equal protection by denying an impairment award to a worker with a Class 1 impairment who has suffered no wage loss, holding that the statute passes rational basis muster under the Equal Protection Clause of the Montana Constitution.Section 39-71-703(2) allows impairment awards for claimants without actual wage loss only if they have a Class 2 or higher impairment rating. Appellant, who was designated as Class 1 and was denied an impairment award, challenged the statute, arguing that it violated her constitutional right to equal protection because other workers with different injuries but the same whole-person impairment percentage would receive the award. The WCC denied the challenge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the WCC did not err in its determination that section 39-71-703(2) did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. View "Hensley v. Montana State Fund" on Justia Law