Archive | Montana Supreme Court summaries

RSS feed for this section

Thieltges v. Royal Alliance Associates, Inc.

Thieltges v. Royal Alliance Associates, Inc., 2014 MT 247 (Sept. 16, 2014) (5-0) McKinnon, J.

Issue: Whether the status of Royal Alliance’s agent as a registered securities salesperson was a self-concealing fact supporting a delay in the running of the statute of limitations.

Short Answer: No.

Affirmed

Malcolmson v. Liberty Northwest

Malcolmson v. Liberty Northwest, 2014 MT 242 (Sept. 10, 2014) (7-0) Cotter, J.

Issue: Whether MCA § 39-71-604(3), requiring a work comp claimant to authorize the insurer to communicate with health care providers without prior notice to the employee, violates Malcolmson’s constitutional right to privacy.

Short Answer: Yes. Applying strict scrutiny, the Court determines the statute is facially unconstitutional. It is justified by a compelling state interest but is not narrowly tailored to effect that interest.

Affirmed

State v. Zunick

State v. Zunick, 2014 MT 239 (Sept. 9, 2014) (4-1) Cotter, J., for the majority; McGrath, C.J., dissenting

Issue: Whether the district court erred when it did not provide Zunick the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea at sentencing pursuant to § 46-12-211(4), MCA, and subsequently denying Zunick’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

Short Answer: Yes.

Reversed & remanded for resentencing

Landa v. Assurance Co. of America

Landa v. Assurance Co. of America, 2013 MT 217 (Aug. 6, 2013) (5-0) (Wheat, J.)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to Assurance on the basis that Assurance had no duty to defend because the complaint did not allege an “occurrence” and did not involve “bodily injury,” and (2) whether the district court properly held that Assurance had no duty to conduct an independent investigation.

Short Answer: (1) Yes, and (2) yes.

Affirmed

Covenant Investments v. Dept. of Revenue

Covenant Investments, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue, 2013 MT 215 (Aug. 6, 2013) (5-0) (Morris, J.)

Issue: Whether the district court properly determined that section 15-7-111, MCA, mandating a six-year tax cycle, violated Covenant’s right to equal protection.

Short Answer: No.

Reversed