Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 39. LABOR · CHAPTER 72. OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE ACT OF MONTANA (Repealed) · Part 3. Coverage and Liability (Repealed)
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 39-72-305 (2026)

Repealed

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 39
  3. CHAPTER 72
  4. Part 3
  5. 39-72-305 Repealed

TITLE 39. LABOR

CHAPTER 72. OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE ACT OF MONTANA (Repealed)

Part 3. Coverage and Liability (Repealed)

Repealed

39-72-305. Repealed. Sec. 38, Ch. 416, L. 2005.

History: En. Sec. 8, Ch. 155, L. 1959; R.C.M. 1947, 92-1308; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 104, L. 1979.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1983–2013 · leading case: Lockwood v. W. R. Grace & Co., 900 P.2d 314 (Mont. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lockwood v. W. R. Grace & Co., 900 P.2d 314 (Mont. 1995). · cites it 18× “Grace moved to dismiss Lockwood’s complaint. It asserted that, taking Lockwood’s allegations as true, her complaint stated an occupational disease claim for which compensation under the MODA was the exclusive remedy pursuant to § 39-72-305, MCA (1983).”
Torres v. State, 902 P.2d 999 (Mont. 1995). · cites it 36× “what she alleges, and if some causal connection between chemicals and the atmosphere of Gaines Hall and her present disability can be established, then she has proven that her disease was caused by a hazard "outside of the employment," and therefore, that it did not "arise out…”
Stavenjord v. Montana State Fund, 2003 MT 67, 67 P.3d 229. · cites it 4× “Therefore, based upon the previously mentioned statutes, that portion of disability would not be covered by the exclusive remedy provision found at § 39-72-305, MCA. Torres, 273 Mont. at 92 , 902 P.”
Ridenour v. Equity Supply Co., 665 P.2d 783 (Mont. 1983). · cites it 12× “” Appellants argue that claimant’s condition fits the above statutory definitions, therefore claimant’s remedy can only be with the Occupational Disease Act, as specified in section 39-72-305, MCA, “The right to recover compensation pursuant to the provisions of this chapter for…”
Nelson v. Cenex, Inc., 2008 MT 108, 181 P.3d 619. · cites it 5× “¶20 Section 39-72-305, MCA (1983), the statute the District Court determined applied in this case, provides, in pertinent part: Right to compensation exclusive remedy-uninsured employers.”
Poppleton v. Rollins, Inc., 735 P.2d 286 (Mont. 1987). · cites it 3× ““To allow an election between the acts does not violate the exclusive language of section 39-72-305, MCA. The legislature only intended that an employee not have a common law action against his employer.”
Loss v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 936 P.2d 313 (Mont. 1997). · cites it 4× “By way of example, each of the following sections of the ODA specifically reference the WCA: The definitions set forth in §§ 39-72-102(5) through (11), (14) and (15), MCA; § 39-72-305(2), MCA, pertaining to uninsured employers and benefits due uninsured claimants; §…”
Harris v. Montana, 2013 MT 16, 294 P.3d 382. “Grace; however, the district court dismissed it on the grounds that benefits under the Occupational Disease Act of Montana (MODA) were her exclusive remedy pursuant *283 to § 39-72-305, MCA. 2 Lockwood, 272 Mont. at 204 , 900 P.”
Reynolds v. United States, 929 P.2d 844 (Mont. 1996). · cites it 2× “Furthermore, as long as the employee’s injury is covered under the Workers’ Compensation Act or under the Occupational Disease Act, then the injured worker’s employer and coemployees are immune from suit by the injured employee and by third parties via a suit for indemnity and…”
Schmidt v. Rhone-poulenc, Inc., 48 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (D. Mont. 1998). · cites it 2× “2d 314 (1995), the court focused upon the plaintiffs allegations of “intentional harm,” 14 and determined the plaintiffs complaint contained sufficient allegations to avoid the exclusivity provision *1261 of Montana’s Occupational Disease Act, Mont.Code Ann. § 39-72-305 (1983).…”
Johnson v. W.R. Grace & Co., 642 F. Supp. 1102 (D. Mont. 1986). “Defendant moves to dismiss these actions on the grounds that the complaints fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and that the actions are barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Montana Occupational Disease Act, § 39-72-305, Mont. Code Ann., and the…”
Mont. Code Ann. § 39-72-305(1): 2 cases
Torres v. State, 902 P.2d 999 (Mont. 1995). “what she alleges, and if some causal connection between chemicals and the atmosphere of Gaines Hall and her present disability can be established, then she has proven that her disease was caused by a hazard "outside of the employment," and therefore, that it did not "arise out…”
Lockwood v. W. R. Grace & Co., 900 P.2d 314 (Mont. 1995). “Grace moved to dismiss Lockwood’s complaint. It asserted that, taking Lockwood’s allegations as true, her complaint stated an occupational disease claim for which compensation under the MODA was the exclusive remedy pursuant to § 39-72-305, MCA (1983).”
Mont. Code Ann. § 39-72-305(2): 1 case
Loss v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 936 P.2d 313 (Mont. 1997). “By way of example, each of the following sections of the ODA specifically reference the WCA: The definitions set forth in §§ 39-72-102(5) through (11), (14) and (15), MCA; § 39-72-305(2), MCA, pertaining to uninsured employers and benefits due uninsured claimants; §…”
Mont. Code Ann. § 39-72-305(l): 1 case
Lockwood v. W. R. Grace & Co., 900 P.2d 314 (Mont. 1995). “Grace moved to dismiss Lockwood’s complaint. It asserted that, taking Lockwood’s allegations as true, her complaint stated an occupational disease claim for which compensation under the MODA was the exclusive remedy pursuant to § 39-72-305, MCA (1983).”
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.