IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

OP 21-0460 

KIRK B. REISBECK, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MONTANA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT, LEWIS & CLARK COUNTY and HON. 

MIKE MENEHAN, DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, 

Respondent. 

FILED 

SEP 15 2021 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

ORDER 

This case involves claims by Kirk B. Reisbeck (Reisbeck) against Farmers 

Insurance Exchange (Farmers) in which Reisbeck asserts Famers contractually owes him 

UIM benefits and that Farmers has and continues to violate its continuing duty to act in 

good faith under the UTPA to conduct a reasonable investigation of his claims and attempt 

in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of claims in which liability 

has become reasonably clear. See § 33-18-201(4), (6), MCA. Trial is currently set for 

September 27, 2021. 

Reisbeck brings a writ Of supervisory control seeking an order to stay the trial date 

and further proceedings in the District Court and further seeking a ruling that the District 

Court is proceeding under a rnistake of law by refusing to follow the mandate ofLorang v. 

Fortis Insurance Company, 2008 MT 252, 345 Mont. 12, 192 P.3d 186. 

Supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy that is sometimes justified when 

urgency or emergency factors exist making the normal appeal process inadequate, when 

the case involves purely legal questions, and when the other court is proceeding under a 

mistake of law and is causing a gross injustice, constitutional issues of state-wide 

importance are involved, or, in a criminal case, the other court has granted or denied a 

motion to substitute a judge. M. R. App. P. 14(3). Whether supervisory control is 

09/15/2021

Case Number: OP 21-0460
appropriate is a case-by-case decision. Stokes v. Mont. Thirteenth Judicial Dist. Court, 

2011 MT 182, ¶ 5, 361 Mont. 279, 259 P.3d 754. Consistent with Rule 14(3), it is the 

Court's practice to refrain from exercising supervisory control when the petitioner has an 

adequate remedy of appeal. See e.g., Buckles v. Mont. Seventh Judicial Dist. Court, 

No. OP 16-0517, 386 Mont. 393, 386 P.3d 545 (Oct. 18, 2016); Lichte v. Mont. Eighteenth 

Judicial Dist. Court, No. OP 16-0482, 385 Mont. 540, 382 P.3d 868 (Aug. 24, 2016). 

Here, Reisbeck asserts he is reluctant to request a stay of his long-awaited trial but 

asserts the District Court is proceeding under a mistake of law which prejudices the 

proceedings and places him at significant disadvantage in making his case. He asserts trial 

is anticipated to last 5 days with 36 witnesses identified, including 14 medical providers 

and expert witnesses, which will result in "substantial expense to both parties, the 

taxpayers, and a significant time commitment for the District Court." 

M. R. App. P. 14(3), requires that to support issuance of a writ of supervisory 

control, urgency or, emergency factors exist that make the normal appeal process 

inadequate. Reisbeck does not assert urgency or emergency, nor does he allege appeal is 

an inadequate remedy. Rather, Reisbeck asserts judicial economy type allegations in 

support of issuance of the writ to "avoid undue cost and delay to the parties." 

As set forth above, supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy and its issuance 

requires urgency or emergency factors that make the normal appeal process inadequate; an 

assertion of desire to avoid cost and delay attendant in the normal appeal process does not 

meet this requirement. This Court has held that conserving resources, without more, is 

insufficient grounds to justify supervisory control where a party can seek review of the 

lower court's ruling on appeal and there is no evidence that relief on appeal would be 

inadequate. Yellowstone Elec. Co. v. Mont. Seventh Judicial Dist. Court, No. OP-19-0348, 

397 Mont. 552, 449 P.3d 787 (Aug. 6, 2019). In this instance, Reisbeck has not 

demonstrated that remedy on appeal would be inadequate. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition for writ of supervisory control is 

DENIED and DISMISSED. 

2 
The Clerk is directed to provide immediate notice of this Order to counsel for 

Petitioners, all counsel of record in the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark 

County, Cause No. ADV 2017-696, and the Honorable Mike Menehan, presiding Judge. 

V1,% 

DATED this IS---clay of Septernber, 2021. 

Justices 

3