Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 28-3-102 (2026)

What Law And Usage To Govern Interpretation

✓ 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 3. INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS

Part 1. General Provisions

What Law And Usage To Govern Interpretation

28-3-102. What law and usage to govern interpretation. A contract is to be interpreted according to the law and usage of the place where it is to be performed or, if it does not indicate a place of performance, according to the law and usage of the place where it is made.

History: En. Sec. 2211, Civ. C. 1895; re-en. Sec. 5035, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 7537, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. Civ. C. Sec. 1646; Field Civ. C. Sec. 811; re-en. Sec. 7537, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 13-712.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case: Wamsley v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 MT 56 (Mont. 2008).
Wamsley v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 MT 56 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 54× “We also noted § 28-3-102, MCA, provides that "`[a] contract is to be interpreted according to the law in [ sic ] [1] usage where it is to be performed or, if it does not indicate a place of performance, according to the law and usage of the place where it is made.”
Mitchell v. State Farm Ins., 2003 MT 102 (Mont. 2003). · cites it 28× “He maintains that Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 6(1) (1971), requires that a court follow § 28-3-102, MCA, where, as in this case, there is a conflict between California law and Montana law.”
Tidyman's Manangement Servs. Inc. v. Davis, 2014 MT 205 (Mont. 2014). · cites it 19× “We concluded that § 28-3-102, MCA, provided a statutory directive that Montana law should apply if performance of the contract occurred in Montana.”
Modroo v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins., 2008 MT 275 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 14× “" Section 28-3-102, MCA. ¶ 56 In Mitchell v.”
Burchett v. MasTec North Am., Inc., 2004 MT 177 (Mont. 2004). · cites it 14× “¶13 Applying the first paragraph of § 6, we look to § 28-3-102, MCA, Montana's statutory directive for choice of law.”
Kemp v. Allstate Ins., 601 P.2d 20 (Mont. 1979). · cites it 9× “, now section 28-3-102 MCA, which provides: “A contract is to be interpreted according to the law and usage of the place where it is to be performed; or, if it does not indicate a place of performance, according to the law and usage of the place where it is made.”
Great Am. Assurance Co. v. Discover Prop. & Cas. Ins., 779 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (D. Mont. 2011). · cites it 14× “The court held Montana had such a directive in the form of Mont.Code Ann. § 28-3-102, which states, “A contract is to be interpreted according to the law and usage of the place where it is to be performed or, if it does not indicate a place of performance, according to the law…”
Polzin v. Appleway Equip. Leasing, Inc., 2008 MT 300 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 8× “” Appleway argues that pursuant to § 28-3-102, MCA, the choice of law clause in Section 4.”
Youngblood v. Am. States Ins., 866 P.2d 203 (Mont. 1993). · cites it 5× “2d 20, 24 ; Section 28-3-102, MCA. Here, the general policy language in the insurance contract requires American States to pay whatever damages are required in Montana; that is, the contract is to be performed in Montana.”
State Ex Rel. Bullock v. Philip Morris, Inc., 2009 MT 261 (Mont. 2009). · cites it 4× “"); § 28-3-102, MCA ("A contract is to be interpreted according to the law and usage of the place where it is to be performed.”
Tucker v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 2009 MT 247 (Mont. 2009). · cites it 4× “FIE seeks application of the place of performance test set forth in § 28-3-102, MCA, to determine which state's law governs the contract.”
Kussler v. Burlington N., Inc., 606 P.2d 520 (Mont. 1980). · cites it 6× “Section 28-3-102, MCA, states: "A contract is to be interpreted according to the law and usage of the place where it is to be performed or, if it does not indicate a place of performance, according to the law and usage of the place where it is made.”
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.