Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 33. INSURANCE AND INSURANCE COMPANIES · CHAPTER 15. THE INSURANCE CONTRACT · Part 4. Application, Issuance, Renewal, Assignment, and Return
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 33-15-403 (2026)

Representations In Applications -- Benefit Precluded And Rescission Allowed If Fraudulent Or Material

✓ 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 33
  3. CHAPTER 15
  4. Part 4
  5. 33-15-403 Representations in applications -- benefit precluded and rescission allowed if fraudulent or material

TITLE 33. INSURANCE AND INSURANCE COMPANIES

CHAPTER 15. THE INSURANCE CONTRACT

Part 4. Application, Issuance, Renewal, Assignment, and Return

Representations In Applications -- Benefit Precluded And Rescission Allowed If Fraudulent Or Material

33-15-403. Representations in applications -- benefit precluded and rescission allowed if fraudulent or material. (1) All statements and descriptions in any application for an insurance policy or annuity contract or in negotiations for an insurance policy or annuity contract by or on behalf of the insured or annuitant are considered representations and not warranties.

(2) Misrepresentations, omissions, concealment of facts, and incorrect statements preclude a benefit and allow rescission under the policy or contract if:

(a) the representations are fraudulent;

(b) the representations are material either to the acceptance of the risk or to the hazard assumed by the insurer; or

(c) the insurer in good faith would either not have issued the policy or contract or would not have issued a policy or contract in as large an amount or at the same premium or rate or would not have provided coverage with respect to the hazard resulting in the loss if the true facts had been made known to the insurer as required either by the application for the policy or contract or otherwise; and

(d) the questions in the application are sufficiently specific so that a reasonable person would understand the requirement to provide the particular facts and that the applicant's response was material to the insurer's decision to provide coverage or to determine the premium or rate to be charged for the coverage.

(3) Subsection (2)(c) does not apply to nonrenewal or discontinuation of group health insurance offered in connection with a group health plan in the small group market or large group market, as those terms are defined in 33-22-140.

(4) If the parties to an insurance policy disagree regarding the propriety of rescission of a policy or a contract under this section, the district courts of this state have jurisdiction to determine the relative rights of the parties under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act in Title 27, chapter 8.

(5) This section may not be construed to limit or impair the powers and authority of the commissioner under this title.

History: En. Sec. 270, Ch. 286, L. 1959; R.C.M. 1947, 40-3713; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 416, L. 1997; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 315, L. 2019.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1979–2018 · leading case: ALPS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. McLean & McLean, PLLP, 425 P.3d 651 (Mont. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
ALPS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. McLean & McLean, PLLP, 425 P.3d 651 (Mont. 2018). · cites it 120× “Section 33-15-403, MCA. Section 33-15-403, MCA, was a clear repudiation of the common law of warranties but also created a narrow remedy at law for insurers to "prevent a recovery" under an insurance policy if the specific elements of the statute, regarding statements made…”
Schlemmer v. North Cent. Life Ins., 2001 MT 256 (Mont. 2001). · cites it 7× “Is the District Court’s conclusion that Schlemmer made a material misrepresentation legally sufficient to allow North Central to deny coverage under the policy? ¶20 The District Court determined Schlemmer’s material misrepresentation was legally sufficient to allow North Central…”
Schneider v. Minnesota Mut. Life Ins., 806 P.2d 1032 (Mont. 1991). · cites it 13× “Did the District Court err in failing to enter judgment in favor of Minnesota Mutual? *338 Minnesota Mutual argues that § 33-15-403, MCA, allows it to deny Darlene’s claim because Jock incorrectly completed the insurance application by failing to reveal the visits to Dr.”
Williams v. Union Fid. Life Ins., 2005 MT 273 (Mont. 2005). · cites it 4× “¶ 23 Moreover, § 33-15-403, MCA, allows an insurer to deny coverage when an applicant fails to provide truthful and accurate information: Representations in applications — recovery precluded if fraudulent or material.”
First SEC. Bank of Bozeman v. Goddard, 593 P.2d 1040 (Mont. 1979). · cites it 3× “It requires a material misrepresentation by an applicant relied on by the insurer to avoid coverage under an insurance policy.”
Preferred Contractors Ins. Co. v. Sherman, 193 A.3d 1009 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018). · cites it 3× “Mont. Code Ann. § 33-15-403 (2). In interpreting Section 33-15-403(2), the Montana Supreme Court has explained: The requirement that a misrepresentation on an insurance application be material either to the acceptance of the risk or to the hazard assumed by the insurer in §…”
Steinback v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 2000 MT 316 (Mont. 2000). · cites it 4× “The court ruled that Bankers Life was therefore entitled to rescind the nursing home policy under § 33-15-403, MCA, "Representations in applications-recovery precluded if fraudulent or material," and that no breach of contract claim could be maintained.”
Hardy v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 763 P.2d 761 (Utah 1988). “§ 374 (1986); Mont.Code Ann. § 33-15-403 (1987); Or.Rev.”
Schindler v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 2011 MT 129 (Mont. 2011). · cites it 6× “¶30 Issue Three: Did the District Court abuse its discretion in denying Schindlers’ motion in limine to preclude USAA from introducing evidence of Greg’s fraud? ¶31 Schindlers moved in limine that USAA be prevented from defending itself pursuant to § 33-15-403, MCA, which…”
Schindler v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 2011 MT 129 (Mont. 2011). · cites it 6× “¶ 30 Issue Three: Did the District Court abuse its discretion in denying Schindlers' motion in limine to preclude USAA from introducing evidence of Greg's fraud? ¶ 31 Schindlers moved in limine that USAA be prevented from defending itself pursuant to § 33-15-403, MCA, which…”
Ahmann v. Minnesota Mut. Life Ins., 83 F. App'x 958 (9th Cir. 2003). “In rescinding Ahmann’s DI policy, MML relied on Mont.Code Ann. § 33-15-403(2) (2002), which provides that: Misrepresentations, omissions, concealment of facts, and incorrect statements do not prevent a recovery under the policy or contract unless: (b) material either to the…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 33-15-403(2) — 3 cases
ALPS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. McLean & McLean, PLLP, 425 P.3d 651 (Mont. 2018). “Section 33-15-403, MCA. Section 33-15-403, MCA, was a clear repudiation of the common law of warranties but also created a narrow remedy at law for insurers to "prevent a recovery" under an insurance policy if the specific elements of the statute, regarding statements made…”
Schlemmer v. North Cent. Life Ins., 2001 MT 256 (Mont. 2001). “Is the District Court’s conclusion that Schlemmer made a material misrepresentation legally sufficient to allow North Central to deny coverage under the policy? ¶20 The District Court determined Schlemmer’s material misrepresentation was legally sufficient to allow North Central…”
Ahmann v. Minnesota Mut. Life Ins., 83 F. App'x 958 (9th Cir. 2003). “In rescinding Ahmann’s DI policy, MML relied on Mont.Code Ann. § 33-15-403(2) (2002), which provides that: Misrepresentations, omissions, concealment of facts, and incorrect statements do not prevent a recovery under the policy or contract unless: (b) material either to the…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 33-15-403(2)(a) — 1 case
Schneider v. Minnesota Mut. Life Ins., 806 P.2d 1032 (Mont. 1991). “Did the District Court err in failing to enter judgment in favor of Minnesota Mutual? *338 Minnesota Mutual argues that § 33-15-403, MCA, allows it to deny Darlene’s claim because Jock incorrectly completed the insurance application by failing to reveal the visits to Dr.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 33-15-403(2)(b) — 2 cases
Schneider v. Minnesota Mut. Life Ins., 806 P.2d 1032 (Mont. 1991). “Did the District Court err in failing to enter judgment in favor of Minnesota Mutual? *338 Minnesota Mutual argues that § 33-15-403, MCA, allows it to deny Darlene’s claim because Jock incorrectly completed the insurance application by failing to reveal the visits to Dr.”
Preferred Contractors Ins. Co. v. Sherman, 193 A.3d 1009 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018). “Mont. Code Ann. § 33-15-403 (2). In interpreting Section 33-15-403(2), the Montana Supreme Court has explained: The requirement that a misrepresentation on an insurance application be material either to the acceptance of the risk or to the hazard assumed by the insurer in §…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 33-15-403(2)(c) — 2 cases
Schneider v. Minnesota Mut. Life Ins., 806 P.2d 1032 (Mont. 1991). “Did the District Court err in failing to enter judgment in favor of Minnesota Mutual? *338 Minnesota Mutual argues that § 33-15-403, MCA, allows it to deny Darlene’s claim because Jock incorrectly completed the insurance application by failing to reveal the visits to Dr.”
Preferred Contractors Ins. Co. v. Sherman, 193 A.3d 1009 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018). “Mont. Code Ann. § 33-15-403 (2). In interpreting Section 33-15-403(2), the Montana Supreme Court has explained: The requirement that a misrepresentation on an insurance application be material either to the acceptance of the risk or to the hazard assumed by the insurer in §…”
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.