Car insurance claims in Montana

Montana is an at-fault state with NO FIRST-PARTY INJURY COVERAGE OF ANY KIND, and that is established at the index level rather than by an absence of search hits: the complete section index of Title 33, chapter 23, part 2 — «Motor Vehicle Liability» — lists only §§ 33-23-201 (uninsured motorist), 33-23-202 (total-loss reimbursement), 33-23-203 (limitation of liability), 33-23-204 (definitions), 33-23-211 to 217 (cancellation and non-renewal) and 33-23-221 to 226 (telematics), with NO personal-injury-protection, medical-payments or no-fault provision anywhere in it. So there is no threshold to cross and no election to make, and Montana differs on this point from both Maine, whose § 1605-A compels $2,000 of medical payments, and North Dakota, which runs a genuine no-fault scheme. What Montana compels is liability insurance: $25,000 for bodily injury to or death of one person, $50,000 where two or more are injured or killed in one accident, and $20,000 for injury to or destruction of the property of others, exclusive of interest and costs, covering any permissive user and valid throughout the United States and Canada (§ 61-6-103(1)(b)). «A reduced limits endorsement may not be issued by a company to be attached to a policy issued in compliance with this section» (§ 61-6-103(12)).

THREE FURTHER PROVISIONS APPLY WHETHER OR NOT THE POLICY REPEATS THEM, AND THEY ARE AMONG THE STRONGEST CLAIMANT PROTECTIONS ON ANY ROW IN THIS DATASET. «A motor vehicle liability policy is subject to the following provisions, WHICH NEED NOT BE CONTAINED IN THE POLICY: (a) The liability of the insurance carrier with respect to the insurance required by this part BECOMES ABSOLUTE WHENEVER INJURY OR DAMAGE COVERED BY THE MOTOR VEHICLE LIABILITY POLICY OCCURS. The policy MAY NOT BE CANCELED OR ANNULLED AS TO THE LIABILITY BY ANY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE INSURANCE CARRIER AND THE INSURED after the occurrence of the injury or damage. A STATEMENT MADE BY THE INSURED OR ON BEHALF OF THE INSURED AND A VIOLATION OF THE POLICY MAY NOT DEFEAT OR VOID THE POLICY. (b) THE SATISFACTION BY THE INSURED OF A JUDGMENT for the injury or damage MAY NOT BE A CONDITION PRECEDENT to the right or duty of the insurance carrier to make payment» (§ 61-6-103(5)). Once the crash happens the insurer’s liability is absolute as against the injured person: it cannot be unwound by agreement with its own insured, and neither the insured’s statements nor the insured’s breach of the policy can void it. A Montana policy is also protected against a post-crash surcharge, and the protection is stricter than the District’s: it «is not subject to cancellation, termination, nonrenewal, or premium increase due to injury or damage incurred by the insured or operator UNLESS the insured or operator is found to have violated a traffic law or ordinance …, is found negligent or contributorily negligent in a court of law or by the arbitration proceedings contained in chapter 5 of Title 27, OR PAYS DAMAGES TO ANOTHER PARTY, WHETHER BY SETTLEMENT OR OTHERWISE», and a premium may not be increased mid-term «unless there is a change in exposure» (§ 61-6-103(6)). Note the sting in the tail — settling IS one of the three triggers.

Shared fault follows the more generous of the two modified-comparative patterns: contributory negligence does not bar recovery if it «was not greater than the negligence of the person or the combined negligence of all persons against whom recovery is sought», and damages are then «diminished in the proportion to the percentage of negligence attributable to the person recovering» (§ 27-1-702). A crash apportioned fifty-fifty therefore recovers half. TWO LABELS ON THAT SECTION DESERVE ATTENTION AND ARE CARRIED ON THIS ROW RATHER THAN RESOLVED: the operative text is the one the Code marks «(Temporary)», which terminates only on a contingency fixed by a 1997 act that has not occurred; and a successor text printed alongside it, marked «(Effective on occurrence of contingency)», would compare the claimant’s fault against the combined fault of ALL DEFENDANTS AND NONPARTIES — a wider denominator that could defeat a claimant the present text allows to recover.

The limitation periods run the opposite way from Montana’s neighbour Idaho, and getting them backwards costs a claim. An action «upon a liability not founded upon an instrument in writing» — the ordinary injury claim — must be brought within three years (§ 27-2-204(1)); an action for «injury to or waste or trespass on real or personal property» or for «taking, detaining, or injuring any goods or chattels» within two (§ 27-2-207). SO THE CLAIM FOR THE CAR DIES A YEAR BEFORE THE CLAIM FOR THE BODY, where Idaho’s § 5-219(4) and § 5-218(3) give two years for the body and three for the car. Suing the insurer has two routes with two clocks, and only one of them is the operative deadline for a claim-handling action. On the policy as a written contract, six years (§ 27-2-202(1)). Under Montana’s statutory claim-handling action, two years from the date of the violation for an insured and ONE year from the settlement of or judgment on the underlying claim for a third-party claimant (§ 33-18-242(8)) — which is what this row publishes, because publishing six years alone would be actively misleading. THAT STATUTORY ACTION IS UNUSUAL IN BOTH DIRECTIONS AND MONTANA OCCUPIES THE EXACT MIDDLE BETWEEN THE TWO POLES IN THIS DATASET. «An insured or a third-party claimant has an independent cause of action against an insurer for actual damages caused by the insurer’s violation of 33-18-201(1), (4), (5), (6), (9), or (13)», and «a plaintiff is not required to prove that the violations were of such frequency as to indicate a general business practice» — so six of the fifteen unfair claim settlement practices are actionable by either party with the general-business-practice element switched off, and «exemplary damages may also be assessed in accordance with 27-1-221». Then it closes every other door: an insured «may bring an action against the insurer for breach of the insurance contract, for fraud, or pursuant to this section, BUT NOT UNDER ANY OTHER THEORY OR CAUSE OF ACTION. AN INSURED MAY NOT BRING AN ACTION FOR BAD FAITH in connection with the handling of an insurance claim», and the same is done to the third-party claimant (§ 33-18-242(1)–(5)). West Virginia gives a third-party claimant no private action at all and Maine gives an insured one while saying nothing about third parties; Montana gives both a statutory action and then abolishes common-law bad faith for both. THE STATUTORY DEFENCE DECIDES MOST OF THESE CASES AND IS STATED BESIDE THE REMEDY OR THE REMEDY IS OVERSTATED: «an insurer may not be held liable under this section if the insurer had a reasonable basis in law or in fact for contesting the claim or the amount of the claim, whichever is in issue» (§ 33-18-242(6)); and «a third-party claimant may not file an action under this section until after the underlying claim has been settled or a judgment entered» in the claimant’s favour.

MONTANA FIXES NO DAY COUNTS AT ALL FOR CLAIM HANDLING — NO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CLOCK, NO DECISION CLOCK AND NO PAYMENT CLOCK — AND THE ABSENCE IS EVIDENCED AT BOTH THE STATUTORY AND THE REGULATORY LEVEL. The unfair claim settlement practices section was read in full, all fifteen paragraphs, and a search of it for «days» returns nothing: the duties are «fail to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims», «fail to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time after proof of loss statements have been completed», «neglect to attempt in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair, and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear» and «fail to promptly provide a reasonable explanation of the basis in the insurance policy … for denial of a claim», all of it limited to conduct done «with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice» (§ 33-18-201). Nothing in Montana corresponds to Idaho’s thirty-day payment clock, Maine’s thirty days or North Dakota’s thirty days for no-fault benefits. Nor does the regulator supply one: the complete subchapter and rule index of the Administrative Rules of Montana title 6 chapter 6.6 was read, and its twenty subchapters contain exactly ONE unfair-trade-practices rule — «6.6.1701 GENERAL BUSINESS PRACTICE OR GENERAL COURSE OF BUSINESS PRACTICE, 10/28/1983», which merely defines a phrase — while EVERY RULE IN THE CASUALTY-AND-PROPERTY SUBCHAPTER ON CANCELLATIONS, NON-RENEWALS AND PREMIUM INCREASES IS MARKED «REP», REPEALED, 6.6.2001 to 6.6.2007, with repeal dates in 1996. The one rule in the chapter titled for claims payment, «6.6.515 STANDARDS FOR CLAIMS PAYMENT», sits inside subchapter 5, MEDICARE SUPPLEMENTS, and is not a motor rule — recorded by name because its title is exactly what a keyword search for a claims timetable would surface. What Montana substitutes for a clock is the private action above, whose own limitation period is the only number a claimant can work to.

Uninsured motorist coverage must be in every Montana policy «in limits for bodily injury or death set forth in 61-6-103», so at 25/50 and no more — Montana does not require the coverage to match the insured’s own liability limits the way Maine does — and «the named insured has the right to reject the coverage. Unless the named insured REQUESTS the coverage IN WRITING, the coverage need not be provided in or supplemental to a renewal policy when the named insured had rejected the coverage in connection with the policy previously issued» (§ 33-23-201). NOTE THAT NO WRITING ATTACHES TO THE REJECTION ITSELF; the writing attaches to a later request to put the cover back, the same shape as Wyoming’s § 31-10-101 and unlike Idaho’s § 41-2502(2). AND NOTE WHAT THE DEFINITION EXCLUDES: «an uninsured motor vehicle is a land motor vehicle, the ownership, the maintenance, or the use of which is NOT INSURED OR BONDED for bodily injury liability at the time of the accident» — a HIT-AND-RUN driver is not mentioned and neither is an insurer’s INSOLVENCY, where Maine, Vermont, North Dakota and Rhode Island all name them expressly. MONTANA ALSO COMPELS NOTHING AT ALL FOR THE UNDERINSURED MOTORIST, and that is an index-level negative rather than an unread gap: no section of chapter 33-23 part 2 requires, or even mentions in its title, underinsured motorist coverage, so a Montana underinsured claim depends on what the policy happens to offer. One provision is worth knowing before any total-loss negotiation: «each motor vehicle insurance policy issued to residents of this state that provides that reimbursement for total loss of a motor vehicle be based on a “BOOK” VALUE rather than on the ACTUAL REPLACEMENT VALUE IS VOID AS TO THAT PROVISION, and reimbursement must be made for actual replacement value except as provided in 27-1-306» (§ 33-23-202) — published as what it is, a TOTAL-LOSS measure, with the carve-out at § 27-1-306 unopened and travelling with the sentence. IT IS NOT A DIMINISHED-VALUE RULE AND MUST NOT BE READ AS ONE: it says nothing about the residual loss in market value of a repaired vehicle, and WHETHER INHERENT DIMINISHED VALUE IS RECOVERABLE IN MONTANA HAS NOT YET BEEN VERIFIED AGAINST A PRIMARY TEXT AND IS NOT STATED HERE. After a crash, «the driver of a vehicle WHO KNOWS OR REASONABLY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that the driver has been involved in an accident resulting in injury to or death of any person, STRIKING THE BODY OF A DECEASED PERSON, or property damage to an apparent extent of $1,000 or more shall IMMEDIATELY BY THE QUICKEST MEANS OF COMMUNICATION give notice of the accident to the local police department if the accident occurs within a municipality, otherwise to the office of the county sheriff or the nearest office of the highway patrol» (§ 61-7-108). The statute says «property damage» without saying whose or in total, so neither Idaho’s per-person measure nor Hawaii’s cumulative one may be imported. Complaints go to the Commissioner of Securities and Insurance, on the office’s own host, whose own page names «coverage issues, claim disputes, premium problems, sales misrepresentations, policy cancellations, and refunds» among what it handles.