Declaratory Judgment: Grounds

Robinson v. Montana State Fund [12/31/08] 2008 MTWCC 55 Petitioner’s challenge to certain statutes and rules are outside the context of a dispute concerning benefits and therefore this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the challenge pursuant to Thompson v. State of Montana, 2007 MT 185, 338 Mont. 511, 167 P.3d 867.

Montana State Fund v. Simms [01/09/08] 2008 MTWCC 3 In situations alleging fraud or deception, this Court need no longer look to Mont. R. Civ. P. 60(b) because § 39-71-2909, MCA, as amended in 1995, now covers situations in which fraud or deception is alleged. Therefore under § 39-71-2909, MCA, this Court has the jurisdiction to consider a petition for declaratory ruling which alleges a claimant fraudulently obtained benefits.

CNA Ins. Co. v. Dunn [03/20/95] 1995 MTWCC 20 Where injured employee filed action in District Court based on information that no workers’ compensation coverage was in place, and employer later asserted coverage under a CNA policy, petition in Workers’ Compensation Court filed by CNA was dismissed at request of claimant. While the Workers’ Compensation Court does have jurisdiction to determine CNA’s liability to claimant, CNA is free to admit liability, making the real import of this Court’s rulings their impact on the District Court case. Under those circumstances, the insurance issues underlying this matter are better resolved in the pending District Court proceeding. Note: this determination was affirmed in CNA Insurance Companies v. Dunn, et al., 273 Mont. 295 (1995) (No. 95-170), though the Supreme Court found the Workers’ Compenation Court did not have concurrent jurisdiction where the District Court’s jurisdiction was invoked prior to the filing of the Workers’ Compensation Court petition.
CNA Ins. Co. v. Dunn [03/20/95] 1995 MTWCC 20 The Workers’ Compensation Court has discretion whether or not to issue declaratory rulings and may decline to do so.