by Wilton H. Strickland

Before starting my own practice in 2013, I had researched and written various motions and appellate briefs that I hoped would succeed. Though I did not take those cases with me, I do take pride in my work and am happy learn that two such efforts prevailed.

One decision was issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals mere days ago in Nelson v. Hartford Ins. Co., No. 12-36042, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7450 (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2014). Appellants sought a reversal of summary judgment holding that their claim of common-law bad faith against an insurance company was untimely. Specifically, they argued that the limitations clock doesn’t start ticking on such a claim until there is a final judgment or settlement of the entire underlying dispute. In the answer brief that I prepared, I argued that not only does appellants’ argument fail on the facts even if assumed legally right, but also that the argument is legally wrong because in many instances the Montana Supreme Court has held that a bad-faith claim emerges even before the entire dispute is resolved. In a short opinion, the Ninth Circuit agreed and affirmed summary judgment by explaining that the claim in question indeed was stale.

The other decision was issued by Montana’s First Judicial District Court in late December in Victory Ins. Co., Inc. v. Liberty Nw. Ins. Co., et al., Cause No. BDV-2011-284. I prepared a motion for summary judgment on behalf of one of the defendants against plaintiff’s one remaining claim — tortious interference in prospective economic advantage. This tort is often difficult to pin down because in the rough-and-tumble world of business, competitors often tout their products and services over those of their competitors, generating confusion over what constitutes legitimate competition versus illegitimate smearing. In this case, I again made a twofold argument: 1) the undisputed material facts showed that no smearing took place; and 2) even if smearing did take place, the plaintiff could not demonstrate any damages or a causal link for such damages as alleged in the complaint. In a comprehensive ruling, the court granted my and the other defendants’ motions for summary judgment, emphasizing my point about the absence of damages or causation. This matter is currently on appeal with the Montana Supreme Court, so we can look forward to some helpful precedent on this tort in the near future.

UPDATE

The court’s ruling in the Victory case was affirmed on appeal: 2015 MT 82, 378 Mont. 388, 344 P.3d 977.