Opinion ID: 888148
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: First-Party Relationship between Addy and Redies

Text: ¶37 Redies argues briefly that Addy acted not only as attorney for Cosner, but also as attorney for Redies. In essence, she suggests that Addy held himself out as her attorney and, thus, that there was an attorney-client relationship between them. Similarly, Justice Cotter's Dissent articulates a credible argument that an attorney-client relationship exists between a protected person and the attorney retained by the protected person's conservator to render legal advice concerning the administration of the estate. Although the Dissent does not use the term, it apparently is of the view that the protected person and the attorney are in privity of contract. [5] From this, the Dissent maintains that Redies was Addy's client. ¶38 Redies' and the Dissent's arguments, however, overlook the issue at hand, which is whether ALPS had a reasonable basis in law for contesting Redies' claims. To answer this question, we must survey the legal landscape as it actually existed during the parties' negotiations. In this regard, neither Redies nor Justice Cotter's Dissent cites any Montana authority establishing, or even intimating, that an attorney retained by a conservator represents the protected person. Had such authority existed at the time ALPS contested Redies' claims, this would be a different case. As it is, however, Redies and the Dissent seem to be faulting ALPS for contesting a theory of liabilitynamely, that Redies was Addy's clientwhich Redies and the Dissent believe is compelling but which, nevertheless, was an open question in Montana in 2001 and 2002. (Incidentally, Redies raised this same theory in the District Court, but her primary argument was that an attorney owes a duty of care to certain third parties such as herself.) Such an approach misplaces the focus of our inquiry, which is not on whether we agree with the plaintiff's theories of liability in the underlying suit but, rather, whether the insurer's grounds for contesting those theories were reasonable under the existing law.