Case ID: mont_221/html/0209-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TURNAGE", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STREICH & ASSOCIATES, INC., a corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, and Robert C. Masters, Defendants and Appellants.
    No. 85-490.
    Submitted on Briefs Jan. 16, 1986.
    Decided April 29, 1986.
    717 P.2d 1101.
    Alexander & Baucus, Neil Ugrin, Great Falls, for defendants and appellants.
    
      Terry N. Trieweiler, Whitefish, for plaintiff and respondent.
   MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TURNAGE

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

This is an appeal from the Flathead County District Court’s denial of a motion for change of venue. We affirm.

We note at the outset that although the new venue provisions in the Montana Code were not in effect when the District Court handled this matter, they apply to this appeal. See Weiss v. State (Mont. 1986), [219 Mont. 447,] 712 P.2d 1315, 43 St.Rep. 82. The current Section 25-2-122, MCA, provides that proper venue for a tort action is where defendant resides, or where the tort was committed.

In this case, we are asked to determine where an alleged insurer bad faith tort was committed. If the alleged tort was not committed in Flathead County, then plaintiff filed the action in an improper county under Section 25-2-122, MCA, and defendants are entitled to removal. See Bradley v. Valmont Industries, Inc. (Mont. 1985), [216 Mont. 429,] 701 P.2d 997, 42 St.Rep. 925.

Plaintiff filed its complaint in the District Court for Flathead County, Montana, claiming the defendants violated Montana’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, Section 33-18-201, MCA. The complaint alleges that plaintiff’s potato crop was damaged by potting soil purchased from Martin’s Peat, Inc. Both the plaintiff’s farm and Martin’s Peat, Inc., are in Flathead County.

Martin’s Peat is insured by defendant, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company. The insurance company has its principal place of business in St. Paul, Minnesota. Defendant, Masters, is a claims representative for the insurance company. Masters resides and maintains his office in Great Falls, Cascade County, Montana. An affidavit of Masters was filed at the District Court stating that all work and decisions on plaintiff’s claim were accomplished in Great Falls. The affidavit also attests that Masters is quadriplegic and that he performs nearly all of his work for the insurance company in Great Falls.

Defendants filed a motion requesting that venue be changed to Cascade County. The District Court denied that motion and a subsequent motion by defendants to vacate, amend, alter or revise the denial. Defendants now appeal the District Court’s refusal to change venue.

We note that the insurance company and its claims representative are separate defendants. Section 25-2-117, MCA, is therefore applicable. That statute provides that “a county that is a proper place of trial for any defendant is proper for all defendants.” In this case, venue in Flathead County was proper for the insurance company.

The basis of plaintiff’s complaint is that defendants violated Montana’s Unfair Trade Practices Act by: (1) failing to act reasonably promptly with respect to plaintiffs claim of damage to his potato crop; (2) failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation of plaintiffs claim; and (3) failing to attempt in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlement of plaintiff’s claim even though liability was reasonably clear. See Section 33-18-201, MCA. Defendants allege that these omissions were committed, if at all, in Cascade County where the claim was reviewed and decisions on handling the claim were made. We disagree.

Plaintiff’s action is founded on Section 33-18-201, MCA. The insurer’s duties under that statute include investigation and negotiation. These duties could only have realistically been performed in Flathead County. Therefore, the duty could only be breached in Flathead County.

“For the purposes of venue, a tort is committed where there is a concurrence of breach of obligation and the occasion of damages.” Whalen v. Snell (Mont. 1983), [205 Mont. 299,] 667 P.2d 436, 40 St.Rep. 1283, 1285. Here, the breach, if any, of the insurer’s obligation and the damages occurred in Flathead County. Venue was, therefore, proper in Flathead County.

We affirm.

MR. JUSTICES HARRISON, SHEEHY, MORRISON, WEBER, GULBRANDSON and HUNT concur.