Contracts: Generally

MONTANA SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Wiard v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp., 2003 MT 295 Contract principle of covenant of good faith and fair dealing did not require insurer to inform claimant of 60-month rule contained in section 39-71-704(1)(d), MCA (1991), regarding using or losing medical benefits.

MONTANA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT DECISIONS

Jones v. Albertsons [06/22/07] 2007 MTWCC 26 Parties may not enter into a legally invalid contract, and this Court will not approve a proposed stipulated settlement and enter judgment to that effect.

Pinnow v. MSF [02/24/06] 2006 MTWCC 9 Where Petitioner attempted to repudiate a stipulation for settlement on the grounds that she believed she was settling only one of two claims, when the language of the settlement clearly delineated that she was settling both claims, the Court agreed with Montana State Fund that the Stipulation for Settlement is a valid contract and must be enforced. Since there was an unconditional offer and an unconditional acceptance, the $125,000 settlement is valid and enforceable. Lockhead v. Weinstein, 2003 MT 360, ¶ 9, 319 Mont. 62, 81 P.3d 1284.

Kruzich v. Old Republic Ins. Co. [06/01/06] 2006 MTWCC 23 The full and final settlement entered into by the parties is a contract, thus contract law governs the agreement. Morrissette v. Zurich American Ins. Co., 2000 MTWCC 2, ¶ 61, citing Kienas v. Peterson, 191 Mont. 325, 329, 624 P.2d 1, 3 (1980). A contract may be rescinded when the parties were laboring under a mutual mistake regarding a material fact when the contract was made. Morissette, ¶ 61, citing South v. Transportation Ins. Co., 275 Mont. 397, 401, 913 P.2d 233, 235 (1996). The contract may be rescinded only where “the parties share a common misconception about a vital fact upon which they based their bargain.” Morrissette, ¶ 61, quoting Mitchell v. Boyer, 237 Mont. 434, 437, 774 P.2d 384, 386 (1989) (citations and emphasis omitted).

Gamble v. Sears [01/30/06] 2006 MTWCC 5 The full and final settlement entered into by the parties is a contract. Therefore, contract law governs the agreement. Morrissette v. Zurich American Ins. Co., 2000 MTWCC 2, ¶ 61 (citing Kienas v. Peterson, 191 Mont. 325, 329, 624 P.2d 1, 3 (1980)). Appealed to Supreme Court 02/23/06

Applegate v. Liberty Northwest Ins. [10/9/02] 2002 MTWCC 45 A rehabilitation plan executed by the claimant and an insurer does not bar a claim for auxiliary benefits where it does not expressly do so and where the plan is adopted pursuant to section 39-71-1006, MCA (1999). Auxiliary benefits are expressly a separate and distinct benefit from rehabilitation benefits. § 39-71-1025, MCA (1999).