Peterson v. Liberty NW Ins. Corp. [12/31/13] 2013 MTWCC 26 Where Petitioner raised the issue of equitable estoppel for the first time in his pretrial brief and at trial, and where there is no mention of equitable estopppel in Petitioner’s contentions in the Pretrial Order which supercedes all other pleadings and governs the trial proceedings, Respondent’s objections to the estoppel argument are sustained and the Court will not consider it. |
Hilbig v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [02/20/09] 2009 MTWCC 6 Under ARM 24.5.318(6), the pretrial order supercedes all other pleadings and will govern the trial proceedings. Therefore, contentions raised for the first time in response to Petitioner's motion for summary judgment will not be considered by the Court as a "fact in dispute" which may preclude summary judgment. |
Kilgore v. Transportation Ins. Co. [10/27/08] 2008 MTWCC 47 Where Respondent moved to introduce a proposed exhibit and sought a post-trial deposition for impeachment and/or rebuttal purposes, the Court concluded that Respondent sought to introduce untimely disclosed evidence in order to fundamentally alter the issues that were incorporated into the Pretrial Order as agreed to at the pretrial conference. If the Court allowed the admission of such evidence under the guise of impeachment or rebuttal evidence, it would effectively negate the fundamental purpose of a Pretrial Order which is to simplify issues, prevent surprise, and allow the parties to prepare for trial based on the Pretrial Order. |
Kilgore v. Transportation Ins. Co. [10/27/08] 2008 MTWCC 47 At the time of the pretrial conference, the parties stipulated that the 1987 statutes applied to Petitioner’s claim, finalized the language in the final Pretrial Order, and agreed on the determinative issues for the Court’s consideration. After the conference, Respondent sought to amend the Pretrial Order and introduce a previously undisclosed exhibit. The Court found no good cause for Respondent’s untimely disclosure of the evidence nor for the requested amendment to the Pretrial Order. |
Lanes
v. Montana State Fund [09/10/07] 2007 MTWCC 39
Petitioner failed to file with the Court a particularization of the
grounds upon which he bases his request for a penalty and attorney fees
as required by this Court’s Scheduling Order. Claimants must particularize
the basis of any claim for a penalty or attorney fees no later than
the time specified for final exchange of exhibits and witness lists,
setting forth which actions or inactions of the insurer were unreasonable.
Notwithstanding Petitioner’s failure to file a particularization
of the grounds upon which he bases his request for attorney fees and
a penalty as required by the Court’s Scheduling Order, the issue
of whether Petitioner was entitled to attorney fees and a penalty was
set forth in the Pre-Trial Order. The Pre-Trial Order supersedes all
other pleadings and controls the course of the trial. ARM 24.5.318(6).
Therefore, these issues were properly before the Court and determined
on their merits. |
| Wall v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. [2/24/98] 1998 MTWCC 11 Where counsel failed to note objections to exhibits in Pretrial Order as required by ARM 24.5.318, exhibits admitted despite objections voiced at trial. |