Court Opinion

ID: 9509552
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:47:10.166684+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:50.341495
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE TRIEWEILER
specially concurring.
I concur with the result of the majority opinion. However, I conclude that the analysis of issues set forth in that opinion is deficient in several respects.
The issues raised by the parties on appeal were:
1. Was there sufficient evidence in support of the plaintiffs’ claims to withstand the defendants’ motions for summary judgment and a directed verdict, and to affirm the jury’s findings in favor of the plaintiffs?
2. If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative, could the jury’s findings be set aside under the guise of statutory review provided for in § 27-1-220, MCA?
The issues raised by the parties require an analysis of our standard of review from denial of motions for summary relief, and our standard of review of a jury’s findings. However, there is no such analysis in the majority opinion. Resolution of the first issue also requires some discussion of what evidence was presented to support the jury’s findings and to justify denial of defendants’ motions. Neither does the majority’s opinion include any discussion of that nature. Although the opinion necessarily infers that the jury’s findings were supported by substantial evidence, nowhere does it say so.
In response to Issue I, the majority infers that whether there is a “reasonable basis” for denying a claim is generally a question of fact, and therefore, that issue was properly submitted to the jury. However, there is no explanation why that general rule applies to the facts in this case.
In its consideration of Issue II, the majority concludes that the District Court erred by entering findings inconsistent with the jury’s findings. However, that is not always true. The majority opinion fails *303to distinguish when it is appropriate for a district court to enter judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
I conclude, after review of the record, that there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s findings that defendants violated the Unfair Trade Practices Act found at § 33-18-201 through -242, MCA, and were guilty of actual malice in violation of § 27-1-221, MCA. Therefore, I concur with the majority’s conclusion that the District Court correctly denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment and a directed verdict, and that the District Court erred by entering findings of fact inconsistent with those of the jury.
I also concur with the majority’s conclusion that Crop Hail Management waived any objection to suit under § 33-18-242, MCA, by raising that issue for the first time on appeal.
JUSTICE HUNT joins in the foregoing special concurrence.