28-10-604. When notice to principal or agent is notice to the other. As against a principal, both principal and agent are deemed to have notice of whatever either has notice of and ought, in good faith and the exercise of ordinary care and diligence, to communicate to the other.
Montana Code Annotated
Mont. Code Ann. § 28-10-604 (2026)
When Notice To Principal Or Agent Is Notice To The Other
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MT-LEGleg.mt.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
TITLE 28. CONTRACTS AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS
CHAPTER 10. AGENCY
Part 6. Rights and Liabilities of Principal
When Notice To Principal Or Agent Is Notice To The Other
History: En. Sec. 3112, Civ. C. 1895; re-en. Sec. 5444, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 7959, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. Civ. C. Sec. 2332; Field Civ. C. Sec. 1247; re-en. Sec. 7959, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 2-203.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1979–2003 · leading case: Kaeding v. WR Grace & Co.-Conn., 1998 MT 160 (Mont. 1998).
Kaeding v. WR Grace & Co.-Conn., 1998 MT 160 (Mont. 1998). “Under Montana law, a principal is deemed to have notice of all information known by his or her agent that the agent should, in good faith and exercising due care and diligence, have communicated to the principal.”
Aetna Life Ins. v. McElvain, 717 P.2d 1081 (Mont. 1986). “This notice is imputed to Shepherds under § 28-10-604, MCA, which provides: As against a principal, both principal and agent are deemed to have notice of whatever either has notice of and ought, in good faith and the exercise of ordinary care and diligence, to communicate to the…”
Stewart v. Casey, 595 P.2d 1176 (Mont. 1979). “Section 28-10-604 MCA (formerly section 2-203, R.”
Harmon v. Deaconess Hosp., 623 P.2d 1372 (Mont. 1981). “” Section 28-10-604, MCA, provides: “As against a principal, both principal and agent are deemed to have notice of whatever either has notice of and ought, in good faith and the exercise of ordinary care and diligence, to communicate to the other.”
DeNiro v. Gasvoda, 1999 MT 129 (Mont. 1999). “See § 28-10-604, MCA. ¶29 We further conclude that the District Court properly considered parol evidence of the circumstances under which the bid was prepared in interpreting provisions of the contract which appeared ambiguous or uncertain.”
Empire Steel Mfg. Co. v. Carlson, 622 P.2d 1016 (Mont. 1981). “At the time the memorandum was executed, both Burleson and Lindner were employees of Carlson, and accordingly, Carlson is imputed to have whatever knowledge either employee had respecting the subject matter of the contract which in good faith in the exercise of ordinary care and…”
Williams v. State Med. Oxygen & Supply, Inc., 874 P.2d 1225 (Mont. 1994). “Section 28-10-604, MCA. See also Empire Steel Mfg.”
Boyne, U.S.A, Inc. v. Mallas, 769 P.2d 1235 (Mont. 1989). “Mallas and Frank therefore argue, citing § 28-10-604, MCA, that knowledge imparted to John Kircher by Mallas is imputed by law to Boyne.”
Williams v. State Med. Oxygen & Supply, 874 P.2d 1225 (Mont. 1994). “Section 28-10-604, MCA. See also Empire Steel Mfg.”
Cameron v. First Nat'l Bank, 607 P.2d 1113 (Mont. 1980). “Section 28-10-604, MCA. In this case Universal’s agent collected the insurance premium, took the written insurance application, determined itself that the application did not fit the insurer’s underwriting rules, and the agent on its own turned down the insurance for Cameron.”
Schlenz v. John Deere Co., 511 F. Supp. 224 (D. Mont. 1981). “See also, § 28-10-604, M.C.A.; Stewart v. Casey, Mont.”
Ahmann v. Minnesota Mut. Life Ins., 83 F. App'x 958 (9th Cir. 2003). “See Mont. Code Ann. § 28-10-604 (2002); Webber v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.