Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 28. CONTRACTS AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS · CHAPTER 2. CONTRACTS · Part 7. Illegal Objects and Provisions
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-702 (2026)

Contracts That Violate Policy Of Law -- Exemption From Responsibility -- Exception

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 28
  3. CHAPTER 2
  4. Part 7
  5. 28-2-702 Contracts that violate policy of law -- exemption from responsibility -- exception

TITLE 28. CONTRACTS AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS

CHAPTER 2. CONTRACTS

Part 7. Illegal Objects and Provisions

Contracts That Violate Policy Of Law -- Exemption From Responsibility -- Exception

28-2-702. Contracts that violate policy of law -- exemption from responsibility -- exception. Except as provided in 27-1-753, all contracts that have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for the person's own fraud, for willful injury to the person or property of another, or for violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law.

History: En. Sec. 2241, Civ. C. 1895; re-en. Sec. 5052, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 7554, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. Civ. C. Sec. 1668; Field Civ. C. Sec. 828; re-en. Sec. 7554, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 13-802; amd. Sec. 780, Ch. 56, L. 2009; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 410, L. 2015.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Miller v. Fallon Cnty., 721 P.2d 342 (Mont. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Miller v. Fallon Cnty., 721 P.2d 342 (Mont. 1986). · cites it 66× “We must also decide whether the waiver is in violation of § 28-2-702, MCA, which states: Contracts which violate policy of the law—exemption from responsibility.”
Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Liss, 2000 MT 380 (Mont. 2000). · cites it 16× “¶ 16 Safeco grounded its motion for summary judgment on four theories: (1) that Montana public policy and § 28-2-702, MCA, "forbid the contractual indemnification of an *403 individual for illegal or criminal acts;" (2) the shooting did not constitute an "occurrence" as defined…”
Great W. Sugar Co. v. Dist. Court for the Thirteenth Jud. Dist., 610 P.2d 717 (Mont. 1980). · cites it 6× “t them forth previously, Great Western, by wantonly, maliciously and carelessly placing the plaintiff in a position of danger, has committed the equivalent *6 of an intentional harm; that applying the exclusivity clause to the contractual agreement of employment between Great…”
Hoven v. First Bank (NA)-Billings, 797 P.2d 915 (Mont. 1990). · cites it 8× “The Hovens argued that the release provisions of the two agreements were not enforceable because of the provisions of § 28-2-702, MCA. That code section in substance provides that a contract which exempts anyone from responsibility from his own fraud, or wilful injury, or for a…”
Langemo v. Montana Rail Link, Inc., 2001 MT 273 (Mont. 2001). · cites it 4× “The Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the indemnity claim as unenforceable pursuant to § 28-2-702, MCA, which provides that contracts may not exempt anyone from liability for their own negligent acts.”
Peris v. Safeco Ins., 916 P.2d 780 (Mont. 1996). · cites it 3× “Section 28-2-702, MCA. The Safeco insurance policy itself provides, at paragraph 19 under Conditions: Terms of Policy Conformed to Statute.”
Zirkelbach Constr., Inc. v. DOWL, LLC, 2017 MT 238 (Mont. 2017). · cites it 32× “¶7 On August 22, 2016, DOWL filed a motion for partial summary judgment arguing, pursuant to the Agreement’s § 5(D) provision, that DOWL cannot be liable to Zirkelbach under the contract for any amount exceeding $50,000.”
Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc., 340 P.3d 27 (Or. 2014). “Unfair Contract Terms Act of 1977, ch 50, § 2(1) (Eng) (“A person cannot by reference to any contract term or to a notice given to persons generally or to particular persons exclude or restrict his liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence.”); La Civ Code…”
Spath v. Dillon Enter., Inc., 97 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (D. Mont. 1999). · cites it 4× ““If liability is found based upon a willful or negligent violation of law, the waiver as it pertains to [the plaintiffs] violates § 28-2-702, MCA, and may not be relied on by any of the [defendants].”
Enron Oil Trading & Transp. Co. v. Underwriters of Lloyd's of London, 47 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (D. Mont. 1996). · cites it 4× “All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, for willful injury to the person or property of another, or for violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law.”
Ohio Farmers Ins. Co. v. JEM Contracting, Inc., 2016 MT 343 (Mont. 2016). · cites it 3× “” Section 28-2-702, MCA, provides, in pertinent part: “[A]ll contracts that have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for the person’s own fraud, for willful injury to the person or property of another, or for violation of law, whether…”
Mitchell v. First Call Bail & Sur., Inc. (D. Mont. 2019). · cites it 2× “§ 28-2-702. □□□ clauses (which simply shift the costs of liability).”
Show all 16 citing cases →
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.