Declaratory Judgment: Pre-emptive Strikes

American Home Assurance v. Mary Bry [2/27/04] 2004 MTWCC 18 Where insurer has denied liability the Court will not consider the insurer's petition to compel the claimant's cooperation in the further investigation and determine its liability.
Liberty NW Ins. Corp. v. Behr [6/19/98] 1998 MTWCC 54 Where an insurer had filed a petition for declaratory judgment that an individual was an employee at the time of an explosion allegedly causing her injury, and the individual had already filed a lawsuit in federal court relating to the incident, the WCC quashed the insurer's motion to compel IME, depositions notices, and subpoenas, all filed within eleven days of the petition, before respondent had even had the chance to respond. All further discovery was stayed until respondent has a chance to answer the petition and these motions and issues are fully briefed and decided.

Liberty NW Ins. Corp. v. Behr [7/9/98] 1998 MTWCC 56 WCC dismissed petition filed by insurer to litigate whether worker was entitled to benefits under WCA after worker filed tort claim against insurer's insured. An insurer cannot use a declaratory judgment action to force a claimant to litigate a potential claim for benefits. Second, in light of the employee's express waiver of any claim for WC benefits, no case or controversy exists between the parties, i.e. between the insurer and employee. Finally, insofar as a real controversy may exist concerning the effect of the waiver upon the tort claim, the insurer is without standing because, as a workers' compensation insurer, it has no personal stake in the outcome of that controversy. The Court hearing the tort claim is the forum to handle an argument over exclusivity of the WC remedy.

Lumbermens Mutual Cas. Co. v. Charles E. Mares [9/19/97] 1997 MTWCC 51 Insurer's petition for declaratory judgment on claimant's entitlement to continued benefits for conditions insurer alleged were not related to work injury was dismissed as improper preemptive strike. As established in State ex rel. Industrial Ind. Co. v. District Court, 169 Mont. 10, 14, 544 P.2d 438 (1975), "ordinarily a court will refuse a declaratory judgment action which can be made only after a judicial investigation of disputed facts, especially where the disputed questions of fact will be the subject of judicial investigation in a regular action." Here, as in Champion International Corp. v. Brennan 1995 MTWCC 45 [6/13/95] 1995 MTWCC 46, the insurer is no longer paying benefits, the claimant has not petitioned the Court and may never do so, and the underlying dispute involves factual matters.
Champion International Corp. v. Brennan [06/13/95] 1995 MTWCC 46 The Workers’ Compensation Court does not permit insurers or self-insured employers to use principles of declaratory judgment to determine the timing of litigation of a worker’s potential entitlement to benefits under the Workers’ Compensation or Occupational Disease Acts. Where adjudication may never be necessary concerning entitlement to benefits, the insurer cannot use a pre-emptive strike to force claimant to settle or litigate just so it can close its files.
Champion Int'l Corp. v. Bernhard [06/13/95] 1995 MTWCC 45 Where adjudication may never be necessary concerning entitlement to benefits, the insurer cannot use a pre-emptive strike to force claimant to settle or litigate just so it can close its files.