Court Opinion

ID: 9507598
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:24:12.559092+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:21.387696
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Sheehy,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I dissent from that portion of the foregoing opinion which affirms the District Court’s dismissal of Kevin Cumiskey’s bad-faith action against St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company.
Under our recent spate of decisions on the point of bad faith, Kevin’s cause of action should have been submitted to the jury. See Klaudt v. Flink, 658 P.2d 1065, 40 St.Rep. 64; Lipinski v. The Title Insurance Company (1982), 201 Mont. 1, 655 P.2d 970, 39 St.Rep. 2283.
I am also of the opinion that the District Court should have submitted the question of total loss to the jury to determine if the valued policy law, Section 33-24-102, MCA, was applicable to Kevin’s claim against St. Paul. The District Court’s interpretation of the valued policy law was disadvantageous to Kevin, and would make no difference to St. Paul, since it, under the verdict, would be subrogated for anything it paid to Kevin from John Cumiskey.
Otherwise, I concur in the judgment entered in the District Court.