Court Opinion

ID: 9507788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:25:32.481096+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:23.754824
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE MORRISON,
specially concurring:
I concur in the result. However, with respect to the punitive damage issue I cannot subscribe to the rationale.
In First Bank Billings v. Transamerica Insurance Co. (Mont. 1984), [209 Mont. 93,] 679 P.2d 1217, 41 St.Rep. 573, we held that it did not violate public policy to provide *148insurance coverage for punitive damages although such insurance coverage removed the punitive burden from defendant and had the potential for shifting it to the insurance carrier and its policyholders. Furthermore, the argument made by the majority could as well be applied to any insurance carrier against whom an award of punitive damages has been made. In all cases the insurance carrier would pass the loss back to its policyholders. This has never provided the courts with reason to insulate such carriers from liability for punitive assessments.
I would simply hold that the State Insurance Fund is part of state government and immune from punitive damages under the applicable statute. White v. State (Mont. 1983), [203 Mont. 363,] 661 P.2d 1272, 40 St.Rep. 507.