Court Opinion

ID: 9511524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:05:31.914235+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:03.547255
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE RICE
specially concurring.
¶14 I concur with the Court’s order. The District Court’s certification analysis is complete and commendable. Unfortunately, however, undertaking review of the merits of the appeal at this juncture, and issuing a decision thereon, would not necessarily resolve all the claims against even one defendant, Safeco. Whether we would affirm or *65reverse the District Court’s entry of summary judgment on the policy interpretation issue, and thereby resolve the UIM coverage claim, the District Court’s denial of Monroes’ motion to amend their complaint to add Safeco as a negligence defendant may bring Safeco before us again in a second appeal. Thus, “the relationship between the adjudicated and unadjudicated claims” leaves us with little ability to foster judicial economy in this case. Roy, 188 Mont. at 87, 610 P.2d at 1189. Although I disagree that avoiding or shortening a trial will always “provided an insufficient basis to support a Rule 54(b) certification,” see ¶ 10, I agree with the Court that the posture of this case does not justify review at this time.