Montana Rules of Civil Procedure

Montana Rules of Civil Procedure - by section

Rule 8

Kratovil v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. [09/07/07] 2007 MTWCC 38 While Mont.R.Civ.P. 8(c) provides that a statute of limitations defense must be pled as an affirmative defense, ARM 24.5.302(1)(a) requires a respondent to set out its contentions in its response, and therefore the Court will not consider a statute of limitations defense if it is not listed in the contentions.

RULE 11

O'Brien v. State Fund [2/10/98] 1998 MTWCC 6 Where section 39-71-2907, MCA, refers to unreasonable delay in payment of "benefits," insurer's conduct in causing delay in release of third-party settlement proceeds does not give rise to a statutory penalty. However, sanctions under section 39-71-2914, MCA (1991), a statutory version of Rule 11, are available in workers' compensation proceedings. Claimant may be entitled to sanctions where State Fund's assertion of "equittable subrogation" in claimant's recovery in a third-party malpractice case, maintained in its response to petition, but abruptly dropped prior to trial, raises a prima facie issue as to whether the assertion was well founded and in good faith. Because the facts on that issue are insufficiently developed, a briefing schedule and hearing on sanctions was set.

RULE 15

Wood v. Montana State Fund [12/06/07] 2007 MTWCC 53 Leave to amend petition granted where Petitioners sought to allege specific contentions in support of their allegations that they are entitled to attorney fees and a penalty, where Petitioners had prayed for attorney fees and a penalty in their initial petition and they learned additional facts which go to Respondent’s alleged unreasonableness in adjusting the claim during the post-petition deposition of Respondent’s claims adjuster.

Shell v. Valor Ins. Co. [03/24/06] 2006 MTWCC 12 Rule 15(a), Mont. R. Civ. P., provides that a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served and otherwise by leave of court, said leave to be freely given when justice so requires. A document captioned as a “Response to Motion” which fails to substantively address the motion within the body of the brief is insufficient to constitute substantive opposition to that motion, and thus as provided for in Rule 24.5.316 ARM, the failure of an adverse party to timely file an answer brief may be deemed an admission that the motion is well taken.

Lanz v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. [08/03/05] 2005 MTWCC 44 An amended petition adding a new party does not relate back to the original petition for statute of limitations purposes where there is no showing that the new party was, within the limitations period, aware of the filing of the petition and knew, or should have known, that the petitioner had made a mistake concerning its identity, or where the petition failed to name fictitious respondents whose true identities were unknown. Rule 15(c), Mont. R. Civ. P. and § 25-5-103, MCA (1999).

RULE 26

Re: John David Miller - The St. Paul Travelers Companies Inc. v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Co. [10/26/07] 2007 MTWCC 44 Where Respondent refused Petitioner’s requests for discovery principally relying on Mont. R. Evid. 402 and the definition of relevant evidence, the Court found Respondent’s reliance misplaced. Pursuant to Mont. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), the test for what is discoverable is evidence which is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Haas v. State Fund [9/1/00] 2000 MTWCC 54 Rule 26(b)(3) Court granted protective order regarding contents of investigator's file and letter from attorney to State Fund to administrator of Tort Claims Unit of State of Montana. Contents of file contained work product and attorney/client communications; claimant had not shown relevance of those materials, much less justification to invade work product. Letter was privileged attorney/client communication.

RULE 54(b)

Kessel v. Liberty [07/10/06] 2006 MTWCC 28 With respect to Rule 54(b) certification, the Montana Supreme Court has held that the lower court must do more than “merely recite the magic words” in certifying a case, but “must clearly articulate the reasons and factors underlying its decision to order a Rule 54(b) certification.” Kohler v. Croonenberghs, 2003 MT 260, ¶ 14, 317 Mont. 413, 77 P.3d 531.

Satterlee v. Lumberman's Mutual [07/12/06] 2006 MTWCC 29 Although Rule 54(b), Mont. R. Civ. P., authorizes the Court to certify certain issues as final for purposes of appeal when remaining issues in the case have not been resolved, the Montana Supreme Court has stated that a court must justify such a certification when other issues remain unresolved. Kohler v. Croonenberghs, 2003 MT 260, 317 Mont. 413, 77 P.3d 531. In the present case, the Court must remove certification because it did not provide justification as required by Rule 54(b).

RULE 54(d)

Cardwell v. UEF [06/15/07] 2007 MWCC 22 Where Petitioner is entitled to his costs, an award of costs may be assessed against the uninsured employer under Rule 54(d) of the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 60(a)

Michalak v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. [04/24/07] 2007 MTWCC 14A “Clerical mistakes and errors are those errors which misrepresent the court’s original intention.” Muri v. Frank, 2001 MT 29, ¶ 12, 304 Mont. 171, 18 P.3d 1022. Where the Court misidentifies the name of a witness in the original Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the error is a clerical error if the correction does not change, in any way, the substance of the Court’s decision, nor does the correction apply different legal rules or factual analyses to the case.

Michalak v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. [04/24/07] 2007 MTWCC 14A The language of Rule 60(a) is unambiguous. A clerical error may be corrected at any time. Therefore, the Court may correct clerical errors pursuant to Rule 60(a) of the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure, even after a party files a notice of appeal to the Montana Supreme Court.

Rule 60(b)

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.

Burgan v. Liberty NW [8/20/02] 2002 MTWCC 41 Even if Rule 60(b) of the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure applies to judgments of the Workers' Compensation Court, the claimant is not entitled to set aside a judgment where there is no mistake of fact or where the moving party moves to set aside the judgment more than 60 days after the alleged mistake.