No. 85-490 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1986 

STREICH & ASSOCIATES, INC., 

a corporation, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY, 

a corporation, and ROBERT C. MASTERS, 

Defendants and Appellants. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Flathead, 

The Honorable Nat Allen, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Alexander & Baucus; Neil Ugrin, Great Falls, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Terry N. Trieweiler, Whitefish, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: Jan. 16, 1986 

Decided: April 29, 1986 

Filed: APR. 2 9 1986, 

Clerk 
Mr. Chief Justice J. A. 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), 712 P.2d 1315, 43 

St.Rep. 82. The current § 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 § 25-2-122, MCA, 

and defendants are entitled to removal. See Bradley v. 

Valmont Industries, Inc. (Mont. 1985), 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, § 33-18-201, M.CA. 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 

plaintiff's claim of damage to his potato crop; (2) failing 

to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt 

investigation of plaintiff's 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 S 33-18-201, MCA. Defendants allege 

that these ommissions 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 S 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. Snel.1 (Mont. 1983), 667 P.2d 

436, 40 St.P.ep. 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. 

./ 

We concur: 

n 

-<"/ c " - , \ Chief Justice 

/ d