Opinion ID: 877791
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: is plaintiff's recovery limited?

Text: Appellants contend that exposure in this case is limited to applicable insurance limits by section 40-4402, R.C.M. 1947. The statute, adopted in 1963, provides as follows: Immunity defense prohibited when liability insured-reduction of award to policy limits. Whenever an insurer accepts any premium, money, or other consideration from a political subdivision of the state, municipality, or any public body, corporation, commission, board, agency, organization, or other public entity for casualty or liability insurance, neither such insured nor insurer shall raise the defense of immunity from suit in any damage action brought against such insured or insurer, and any agreement in the insurance contract permitting the defense of immunity is hereby declared void ... If the court determines that the defendant could have successfully raised the defense of immunity, and if the verdict exceeds the limits of the applicable insurance, the court shall reduce the amount of such judgment or award to a sum equal to the applicable limit stated in the policy. The 1972 Montana Constitution, Article II, Section 18, provides: The state ... shall have no immunity from suit for injury to a person or property, except as may be specifically provided by law by a 2/3 vote of each house of the legislature. The intent of section 40-4402 was to provide for waiver of sovereign immunity where insurance was carried but to limit such waiver to the limits of the liability policy. The statute itself contemplated the existence of governmental immunity which was abolished by the new constitution. The purpose of the statute is made clear by the title which provided: An act prohibiting the defense of sovereign immunity where public bodies are insured; ... and providing for the reduction of awards to policy limits where sovereign immunity defense could have been successfully raised; ... Ch. 240, Laws of Mont. (1963). Sovereign immunity could not be raised as a defense in this case. The statute has no application. Section 2-9-104, MCA, limiting state liability, became law after this accident but was in effect at time of trial. Appellants contend section 2-9-104, MCA, is procedural and limits plaintiff's recovery because it existed when judgment was rendered. This question was disposed of in Dvorak v. Huntley Project Irrigation District (1981), Mont., 639 P.2d 62, 38 St.Rep. 2176. Damages are substantive and the measure of damage is governed by law in effect on the date of injury. The District Court order denying any limitation on plaintiff's recovery is affirmed.