Court Opinion

ID: 9511395
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:04:23.367257+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:00.562703
License: Public Domain

*129JUSTICE NELSON
concurs.
¶21 I concur in our resolution of this appeal.
¶22 The Court refers to the ninety-day time period of § 39-71-520, MCA (2001), without noting the “dispute” requirement disclosed by the plain language of the statute. This is consistent with the Court’s recent interpretation of § 39-71-520, MCA (1999), rendered in Colmore v. Uninsured Employers’ Fund, 2005 MT 239, 328 Mont. 441, 121 P.3d 1007.
¶23 I dissented as to the Court’s statutory interpretation in Colmore, and I remain convinced that the Court erred in this regard. However, even if the Court had properly interpreted § 39-71-520, MCA (1999), in Colmore, the result in this case would not be different.
¶24 Thus, I concur.