Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 33. INSURANCE AND INSURANCE COMPANIES · CHAPTER 18. UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES · Part 2. Insurer's Relations With Insured and Claimant
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-242 (2026)

Independent Cause Of Action -- Burden Of Proof

✓ 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 18
  4. Part 2
  5. 33-18-242 Independent cause of action -- burden of proof

TITLE 33. INSURANCE AND INSURANCE COMPANIES

CHAPTER 18. UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES

Part 2. Insurer's Relations With Insured and Claimant

Independent Cause Of Action -- Burden Of Proof

33-18-242. Independent cause of action -- burden of proof. (1) An insured or a third-party claimant has an independent cause of action against an insurer for actual damages caused by the insurer's violation of 33-18-201(1), (4), (5), (6), (9), or (13).

(2) In an action under this section, a plaintiff is not required to prove that the violations were of such frequency as to indicate a general business practice.

(3) An insured who has suffered damages as a result of the handling of an insurance claim may bring an action against the insurer for breach of the insurance contract, for fraud, or pursuant to this section, but not under any other theory or cause of action. An insured may not bring an action for bad faith in connection with the handling of an insurance claim.

(4) A third-party claimant who has suffered damages as a result of the handling of an insurance claim may bring an action against the insurer for fraud or pursuant to this section, but not under any other theory or cause of action. A third-party claimant may not bring an action for bad faith in connection with the handling of an insurance claim.

(5) In an action under this section, the court or jury may award such damages as were proximately caused by the violation of 33-18-201(1), (4), (5), (6), (9), or (13). Exemplary damages may also be assessed in accordance with 27-1-221.

(6) An insurer may not be held liable under this section if the insurer had a reasonable basis in law or in fact for contesting the claim or the amount of the claim, whichever is in issue.

(7) (a) An insured may file an action under this section, together with any other cause of action the insured has against the insurer. Actions may be bifurcated for trial where justice so requires.

(b) A third-party claimant may not file an action under this section until after the underlying claim has been settled or a judgment entered in favor of the claimant on the underlying claim.

(8) The period prescribed for commencement of an action under this section is:

(a) for an insured, within 2 years from the date of the violation of 33-18-201; and

(b) for a third-party claimant, within 1 year from the date of the settlement of or the entry of judgment on the underlying claim.

(9) As used in this section, the term "insurer" does not include a person, firm, or corporation utilizing a captive insurance company to pay claims made against it, unless that captive insurance group is a captive risk retention group.

History: En. Sec. 3, Ch. 278, L. 1987; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 356, L. 2023; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 430, L. 2023.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 144 cases (37 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: Jacobsen v. Allstate Ins., 2013 MT 244 (Mont. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jacobsen v. Allstate Ins., 2013 MT 244 (Mont. 2013). · cites it 89× “The court did not rely on § 33-18-242, MCA, as authority for the class claim or the class remedy.”
Brewington v. Employers Fire Ins., 1999 MT 312 (Mont. 1999). · cites it 126× “Did the District Court err when it concluded that § 33-18-242, MCA preempted a claim for the common law tort of bad faith by third-party claimants? ¶ 4 2.”
Redies v. Attorneys Liab. Prot. Soc'y, 2007 MT 9 (Mont. 2007). · cites it 64× “(4) refuse to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon all available information; . . . (6) neglect to attempt in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair, and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear; .”
Draggin' Y Cattle Co. v. Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C., 439 P.3d 935 (Mont. 2019). · cites it 45× “Plaintiffs argue that the constellation of an insurer's various acts in violation of UTPA duties or in breach of the insurance contract justifies the insured's unilateral action and that the District Court rightly applied the Tidyman's standard to give the settlement amount a…”
Est. of Gleason v. Cent. United Life Ins., 2015 MT 140 (Mont. 2015). · cites it 76× “Did the District Court err when it instructed the jury that it must first find UTPA damages beyond damages for failure to pay benefits under the policy before considering malice and punitive damages? 15 ¶41 The answer to this question hinges on our interpretation of § 33-18-242,…”
Lorang v. Fortis Ins., 2008 MT 252 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 30× “2d 1065, 1066 (1983) (overruled in part on other grounds, superseded in part by § 33-18-242, MCA); Fode v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 221 Mont.”
Williams v. Union Fid. Life Ins., 2005 MT 273 (Mont. 2005). · cites it 56× “¶ 29 Union Fidelity also argues that the Montana Legislature limited the claims that an insured may bring against an insurer when it enacted § 33-18-242, MCA, and under that statute, postclaim underwriting is not an independent claim.”
Dees v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins., 861 P.2d 141 (Mont. 1993). · cites it 62× “Section 33-18-242, MCA, also provides for exemplary damages assessed in accordance with ž 27-1-221, MCA.”
Graf v. Cont'l W. Ins., 2004 MT 105 (Mont. 2004). · cites it 50× “On August 23, 1999, attorney John Iwen, who represented Graf in her trial and her appeal, filed this lawsuit, claiming Continental violated § 33-18-242, Mont. Code Ann. and also alleging claims for outrage or intentional infliction of severe emotional distress.”
Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 2000 MT 153 (Mont. 2000). · cites it 44× “” The court further determined that “[b]ecause this action does not directly seek bad faith damages for a violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act, there is no statutory bar under Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-242 (6)(b).” ¶10 The District Court ordered that Safeco “must advance…”
Sampson v. Nat'l Farmers Union Prop. & Cas. Co., 2006 MT 241 (Mont. 2006). · cites it 26× “Relying upon § 33-18-242, MCA, Claimants alleged that NFU violated § 33-18-201(6), MCA, by *543 neglecting “to attempt in good faith to effectuate a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of [Sampson’s and Cybulski’s] claims on which [NFU’s] Lability was reasonably clear.”
Thomas v. Nw. Nat'l Ins., 1998 MT 343 (Mont. 1998). · cites it 40× “" To interpret § 33-18-242, MCA, as an exclusive remedy, would cause us to insert language in § 33-18-242, MCA, that does not already exist.”
Show all 144 citing cases →
— Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-242(1) — 38 cases
Lorang v. Fortis Ins., 2008 MT 252 (Mont. 2008). “2d 1065, 1066 (1983) (overruled in part on other grounds, superseded in part by § 33-18-242, MCA); Fode v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 221 Mont.”
Jacobsen v. Allstate Ins., 2013 MT 244 (Mont. 2013). “The court did not rely on § 33-18-242, MCA, as authority for the class claim or the class remedy.”
Redies v. Attorneys Liab. Prot. Soc'y, 2007 MT 9 (Mont. 2007). “(4) refuse to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon all available information; . . . (6) neglect to attempt in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair, and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear; .”
Est. of Gleason v. Cent. United Life Ins., 2015 MT 140 (Mont. 2015). “Did the District Court err when it instructed the jury that it must first find UTPA damages beyond damages for failure to pay benefits under the policy before considering malice and punitive damages? 15 ¶41 The answer to this question hinges on our interpretation of § 33-18-242,…”
Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 2000 MT 153 (Mont. 2000). “” The court further determined that “[b]ecause this action does not directly seek bad faith damages for a violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act, there is no statutory bar under Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-242 (6)(b).” ¶10 The District Court ordered that Safeco “must advance…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-242(2) — 6 cases
Lorang v. Fortis Ins., 2008 MT 252 (Mont. 2008). “2d 1065, 1066 (1983) (overruled in part on other grounds, superseded in part by § 33-18-242, MCA); Fode v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 221 Mont.”
Draggin' Y Cattle Co. v. Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C., 439 P.3d 935 (Mont. 2019). “Plaintiffs argue that the constellation of an insurer's various acts in violation of UTPA duties or in breach of the insurance contract justifies the insured's unilateral action and that the District Court rightly applied the Tidyman's standard to give the settlement amount a…”
Dees v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins., 861 P.2d 141 (Mont. 1993). “Section 33-18-242, MCA, also provides for exemplary damages assessed in accordance with ž 27-1-221, MCA.”
Ridley v. Guar. Nat'l Ins., 951 P.2d 987 (Mont. 1997).
Ridley v. Guar. Nat. Ins. Co., 951 P.2d 987 (Mont. 1998).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-242(3) — 28 cases
Williams v. Union Fid. Life Ins., 2005 MT 273 (Mont. 2005). “¶ 29 Union Fidelity also argues that the Montana Legislature limited the claims that an insured may bring against an insurer when it enacted § 33-18-242, MCA, and under that statute, postclaim underwriting is not an independent claim.”
Thomas v. Nw. Nat'l Ins., 1998 MT 343 (Mont. 1998). “" To interpret § 33-18-242, MCA, as an exclusive remedy, would cause us to insert language in § 33-18-242, MCA, that does not already exist.”
Draggin' Y Cattle Co. v. Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C., 439 P.3d 935 (Mont. 2019). “Plaintiffs argue that the constellation of an insurer's various acts in violation of UTPA duties or in breach of the insurance contract justifies the insured's unilateral action and that the District Court rightly applied the Tidyman's standard to give the settlement amount a…”
Sunburst Sch. Dist. No. 2 v. Texaco, Inc., 2007 MT 183 (Mont. 2007).
Watters v. Guar. Nat'l Ins., 2000 MT 150 (Mont. 2000).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-242(3)(2001) — 1 case
Steinke v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 270 F. Supp. 2d 1196 (D. Mont. 2003).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-242(4) — 13 cases
Jacobsen v. Allstate Ins., 2013 MT 244 (Mont. 2013). “The court did not rely on § 33-18-242, MCA, as authority for the class claim or the class remedy.”
Est. of Gleason v. Cent. United Life Ins., 2015 MT 140 (Mont. 2015). “Did the District Court err when it instructed the jury that it must first find UTPA damages beyond damages for failure to pay benefits under the policy before considering malice and punitive damages? 15 ¶41 The answer to this question hinges on our interpretation of § 33-18-242,…”
Dees v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins., 861 P.2d 141 (Mont. 1993). “Section 33-18-242, MCA, also provides for exemplary damages assessed in accordance with ž 27-1-221, MCA.”
Lorang v. Fortis Ins., 2008 MT 252 (Mont. 2008). “2d 1065, 1066 (1983) (overruled in part on other grounds, superseded in part by § 33-18-242, MCA); Fode v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 221 Mont.”
Draggin' Y Cattle Co. v. Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C., 439 P.3d 935 (Mont. 2019). “Plaintiffs argue that the constellation of an insurer's various acts in violation of UTPA duties or in breach of the insurance contract justifies the insured's unilateral action and that the District Court rightly applied the Tidyman's standard to give the settlement amount a…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-242(5) — 44 cases
Redies v. Attorneys Liab. Prot. Soc'y, 2007 MT 9 (Mont. 2007). “(4) refuse to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon all available information; . . . (6) neglect to attempt in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair, and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear; .”
Est. of Gleason v. Cent. United Life Ins., 2015 MT 140 (Mont. 2015). “Did the District Court err when it instructed the jury that it must first find UTPA damages beyond damages for failure to pay benefits under the policy before considering malice and punitive damages? 15 ¶41 The answer to this question hinges on our interpretation of § 33-18-242,…”
Shilhanek v. D-2 Trucking, Inc., 2003 MT 122 (Mont. 2003).
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Freyer, 2013 MT 301 (Mont. 2013).
Jacobsen v. Allstate Ins., 2013 MT 244 (Mont. 2013). “The court did not rely on § 33-18-242, MCA, as authority for the class claim or the class remedy.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-242(6) — 9 cases
Jacobsen v. Allstate Ins., 2013 MT 244 (Mont. 2013). “The court did not rely on § 33-18-242, MCA, as authority for the class claim or the class remedy.”
Boettcher v. Montana Guar. Fund, 2007 MT 69 (Mont. 2007).
Brewington v. Employers Fire Ins., 1999 MT 312 (Mont. 1999). “Did the District Court err when it concluded that § 33-18-242, MCA preempted a claim for the common law tort of bad faith by third-party claimants? ¶ 4 2.”
Grenz v. Orion Grp., Inc., 795 P.2d 444 (Mont. 1990).
Hop v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois, 2011 MT 215 (Mont. 2011).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-242(6)(a) — 6 cases
Thomas v. Nw. Nat'l Ins., 1998 MT 343 (Mont. 1998). “" To interpret § 33-18-242, MCA, as an exclusive remedy, would cause us to insert language in § 33-18-242, MCA, that does not already exist.”
Heggem Ex Rel. Heggem v. Capitol Indem. Corp., 2007 MT 74 (Mont. 2007).
Peris v. Safeco Ins., 916 P.2d 780 (Mont. 1996).
Malta Pub. Sch. Dist. A & 14 v. Montana Seventeenth Jud. Dist. Court, 938 P.2d 1335 (Mont. 1997).
Bloxham v. Mountain West Farm Bureau Mut. Ins., 43 F. Supp. 2d 1121 (D. Mont. 1999).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-242(6)(b) — 20 cases
Graf v. Cont'l W. Ins., 2004 MT 105 (Mont. 2004). “On August 23, 1999, attorney John Iwen, who represented Graf in her trial and her appeal, filed this lawsuit, claiming Continental violated § 33-18-242, Mont. Code Ann. and also alleging claims for outrage or intentional infliction of severe emotional distress.”
Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 2000 MT 153 (Mont. 2000). “” The court further determined that “[b]ecause this action does not directly seek bad faith damages for a violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act, there is no statutory bar under Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-242 (6)(b).” ¶10 The District Court ordered that Safeco “must advance…”
O'Connor v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins., 2004 MT 65 (Mont. 2004).
Marshall v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill., 2018 MT 45 (Mont. 2018).
DuBray v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 2001 MT 251 (Mont. 2001).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-242(7) — 3 cases
Brewington v. Employers Fire Ins., 1999 MT 312 (Mont. 1999). “Did the District Court err when it concluded that § 33-18-242, MCA preempted a claim for the common law tort of bad faith by third-party claimants? ¶ 4 2.”
Federated Mut. Ins. v. Anderson, 1999 MT 288 (Mont. 1999).
Carlson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 76 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (D. Mont. 1999).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-242(7)(a) — 4 cases
Peris v. Safeco Ins., 916 P.2d 780 (Mont. 1996).
Burton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 105 F. App'x 154 (9th Cir. 2004).
Hilliard (D. Mont. 2026).
Webster v. Geico Ins. Co., 2000 MT 174N (Mont. 2000).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-242(7)(b) — 9 cases
Brewington v. Employers Fire Ins., 1999 MT 312 (Mont. 1999). “Did the District Court err when it concluded that § 33-18-242, MCA preempted a claim for the common law tort of bad faith by third-party claimants? ¶ 4 2.”
Brilz v. Metro. Gen. Ins., 2012 MT 184 (Mont. 2012).
O'Connor v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins., 2004 MT 65 (Mont. 2004).
Peris v. Safeco Ins., 916 P.2d 780 (Mont. 1996).
Satterwhite v. Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs., Inc. (D. Mont. 2024).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-242(8) — 4 cases
Dannels v. BNSF, 2021 MT 71 (Mont. 2021).
Ogden v. Montana Power Co., 747 P.2d 201 (Mont. 1987).
Grenz v. Orion Grp., Inc., 795 P.2d 444 (Mont. 1990).
Dubray Land Servs., Inc. v. Schroder Ventures U.S., 488 F. Supp. 2d 1109 (D. Mont. 2007).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-242(9) — 3 cases
Brent Lee Smith v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC (D. Mont. 2025).
Satterwhite v. Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs., Inc. (D. Mont. 2024).
Couto v. CorVel Enter. Comp., Inc. (D. Mont. 2025).
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.