Summary Judgment: Motion for Summary Judgment

MONTANA SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

George v. Bowler, 2015 MT 209, 380 Mont. 155, 354 P.3d 585 After the party moving for summary judgment meets its initial burden in establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the opposing party to establish with substantial evidence, as opposed to mere denial, speculation, or conclusory assertions, that a genuine issue of material fact does exist or that the moving party is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
 
 
MONTANA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT DECISIONS

Carlock v. Liberty NW Ins. Corp. [10/21/15] 2015 MTWCC 19 A motion for summary judgment, supported only by the claimant’s answer to an interrogatory that he had a “significant asbestos exposure” while employed with the City of Libby, does not prove that he has an OD or that his alleged OD was caused by his City of Libby employment. Medical causation requires expert opinion or testimony; the movant presented no evidence of the criteria claimant used to form his opinion that his asbestos exposure was “significant,” or that he has sufficient knowledge and expertise to say that the conditions under which he worked for the City of Libby could have caused his alleged OD.
Wombold v. Montana State Fund [12/29/09] 2009 MTWCC 40 Where the claimant moved for summary judgment and the insurer did not cross-motion in a case where the issue was purely an issue of law with no issues of material fact remaining, the Court concluded that while it may be appropriate to grant summary judgment in favor of the non-moving party with no formal cross-motion, the claimant must be afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard. The Court therefore reserved entering judgment for a period of time to allow the claimant to respond.

Emmons v. MHA Workers Compensation Reciprocal [03/09/09] 2009 MTWCC 10 The Court will not consider the summary judgment motion of a claimant who fails to comply with the requirements of ARM 24.5.329(3) in setting forth a statement of uncontroverted facts.
Benton v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [01/16/09] 2009 MTWCC 2 Where the UEF joined in Respondent’s motion for summary judgment and Respondent was subsequently dismissed as a party, judicial economy is not served by requiring a pro forma “do over” of the motion and order, irrespective of whether Respondent was a proper party to the action. The UEF’s joinder in the employer’s motion renders the issue of whether the employer was a proper party at the time it filed the motion moot.
Satterlee v. Lumberman's Mutual [07/12/06] 2006 MTWCC 29 Since the Court’s Order denying Petitioners’ motion for summary judgment did not address Respondents’ cross-motion for summary judgment, the Court erroneously certified the Order as final for purposes of appeal.

In Re Telles; Travelers Property & Casualty Co. of America v. Royal Ins. Co. of America [04/22/05] 2005 MTWCC 21 Summary judgment may be granted to a non-moving party where the parties agree on the essential facts and the issue is one of law.

Burke v. Montana State Fund [01/05/05] 2005 MTWCC 1 Motion for summary judgment denied for failure to comply with Rule 24.5.329(3), which requires any motion for summary judgment to set forth facts serially and with citation to evidence. The requirements reduce the time necessary to resolve a motion for summary judgment and reduces the possibility that the Court will miss essential facts.
Cuellar v. Vanliner Ins. Co. [6/24/04] 2004 MTWCC 51 Where one party presents medical opinion that a particular medical condition was not caused by the claimant's industrial accident, the other party can avoid summary judgment only by presenting contrary medical opinion or evidence which raises a factual issue regarding causation.
Re: Kurth, Harold G. [12/23/03] 2003 MTWCC 71 Motion for Summary Judgment. A motion for summary judgment which does not cite to admissible evidence and which is not supported by admissible evidence must be denied summarily.
Oens v. Employee Benefits Ins. Co. [6/5/03] 2003 MTWCC 40 Motions for summary judgment are not favored. Summary judgment will be refused where the Court would be required to make inferences about claimant's knowledge or diligence without full development of the record.
Smith v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. [10/31/02] 2002 MTWCC 54 Where a deposition necessary to consideration of summary judgment motion is to be taken less than a week before the scheduled trial, it is just as expeditious for the Court to proceed with the trial. Therefore, the motion will be denied without prejudice. ARM 24.5.329(1)(b).
Kemp v. Montana Contractor Compensation Fund [6/4/98] 1998 MTWCC 45 Motion for summary judgment denied for failure to comply with ARM 24.5.329(3) regarding presentation of alleged undisputed facts.
Darrah v. ASARCO [5/8/01] 2001 MTWCC 20 The Court will not consider facts which are not supported by reference to affidavits, depositions, or discovery answers.
Darrah v. ASARCO [5/8/01] 2001 MTWCC 20 The Court will only consider facts which are properly set out separately and in serial fashion and will ignore other facts appearing in the body of the brief.
UEF v. SMF/Ed Gray [10/20/00] 2000MTWCC 66 Motion for summary judgment denied where not supported by any discovery, affidavits or other admissible evidence and not in form required by ARM 24.5.329. Belated submission of affidavits and exhibits not considered by the Court.
Miller v. State Fund [9/20/00] 2000 MTWCC 63 Claimant's motion in limine to exclude evidence of fraud at trial was not proper where claimant, in essence, sought to strike an affirmative defense but had not moved for partial summary judgment or to strike.
Royal Ins. Co. v. Roadarmel and White [7/30/99] 1999 MTWCC 48 [summary judgment grant reversed 2000 MT 259] Where respondents and cross-movants for summary judgment did not contest statement of facts offered by other party, they cannot do so on motion for reconsideration of ruling. Nor can they reargue the merits of the motion.
Galetti v. Montana Power Company [10/19/98] 1998 MTWCC 75 Where petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment using a factual narrative, and has attached numerous documents without specifying the source of the document's authenticity, the motion is denied for failure to comply with Court rules. ARM 24.5.329 requires that facts supporting a motion for summary judgment be set forth in serial fashion, not in narrative form, and that the motion include reference to a specific pleadings, affidavit, or other document where the fact may be found. This rule exists for a purpose. It enables the opposing party to identify each specific fact it disputes and allows the Court to quickly determine facts without sorting through long factual narratives. Future motions with this defect will be summarily denied.
Pittsley v. State Fund [6/4/98] 1998 MTWCC 44 Motion for summary judgment denied for failure to comply with ARM 24.5.329(3) regarding presentation of alleged undisputed facts. The requirements to set forth facts serially and with reference to specific evidence reduces the time necessary to resolve a motion for summary judgment and avoids the possibility that the court would miss essential facts.
Sears v. Travelers Ins. [5/13/98] 1998 MTWCC 43 Where motion for summary judgment may have resolved all issues in the case, parties proffered evidence they would introduce at trial and posed the question whether this evidence would be material to any issue. The WCC ruled that such evidence would not impact its determination on summary judgment, which appeared dispositive of the case. Final judgment entered.
Smith v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. [10/15/96] 1996 MTWCC 65 Neither party complied with ARM 24.5.329(3), which requires a brief in support of or opposition to a motion for summary judgment to include a statement of uncontroverted facts, in serial (not narrative) form, referencing specific pleadings, affidavits or other documents that support each specific fact. If this motion required the Court to conclude that certain facts were established, it would be denied based on failure to comply with ARM 24.5.329(3).
Stormont v. National Union Fire of Pittsburgh [1/3/96]1996 MTWCC 1 While lack of supporting affidavits and discovery may not always be fatal to a motion for summary judgment (for example, where the briefs reveal agreement to facts necessary to resolve the motion), summary judgment will be denied where the moving party does not comply with rules requiring authenticated evidence or sworn discovery to support the motion.