Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 49. HUMAN RIGHTS · CHAPTER 2. ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION · Part 3. Prohibited Discriminatory Practices
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-309 (2026)

Discrimination In Insurance And Retirement Plans

✓ 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 49
  3. CHAPTER 2
  4. Part 3
  5. 49-2-309 Discrimination in insurance and retirement plans

TITLE 49. HUMAN RIGHTS

CHAPTER 2. ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION

Part 3. Prohibited Discriminatory Practices

Discrimination In Insurance And Retirement Plans

49-2-309. Discrimination in insurance and retirement plans. (1) A financial institution or person may not discriminate solely on the basis of sex or marital status in the issuance or operation of any type of insurance policy, plan, or coverage or in any pension or retirement plan, program, or coverage, including discrimination in regard to rates or premiums and payments or benefits.

(2) This section does not apply to any insurance policy, plan, or coverage or to any pension or retirement plan, program, or coverage in effect prior to October 1, 1985.

(3) It is not a violation of the prohibition against marital status discrimination in this section for an employer to provide greater or additional contributions to a bona fide group insurance plan for employees with dependents than to those employees without dependents or with fewer dependents.

(4) Except as prohibited under 45 CFR, part 147, implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as of October 1, 2021, it is not a violation of the prohibition against sex or marital status discrimination in this section for a person to use accepted ratemaking methodologies based on sex or marital status in establishing insurance premium rates.

History: En. Secs. 1, 3, Ch. 531, L. 1983; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 13, L. 1993; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 250, L. 2021.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2021 · leading case: Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Peterson, 866 P.2d 241 (Mont. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Peterson, 866 P.2d 241 (Mont. 1993). · cites it 67× “In a case of first impression, the issue before this Court is whether an individual major medical expense insurance policy that excludes coverage for normal pregnancy and childbirth violates § 49-2-309, MCA. Unique to Montana, § 49-2-309, MCA, prohibits discrimination based…”
Shook v. State Farm Mut. Ins. of Bloomington, Ill., 872 F. Supp. 768 (D. Mont. 1994). · cites it 2× “Lois also challenges the validity of the exclusion as violative of public policy in the following respects: (i) the exclusion operates to unfairly discriminate against individuals based upon their marital status in violation of Mont.Code Ann. § 49-2-309 (1991); and (ii)…”
Williams v. Nat'l Cas. Co., 132 S.W.3d 244 (Mo. 2004). · cites it 2× “1203 (1979), Mont.Code Ann. § 49-2-309 (1985)), Nebraska (Neb.”
Maffit v. City of Helena, 2021 MT 14 (Mont. 2021). “…(§ 49-2-307, MCA); discrimination by the state (§ 49-2-308, MCA); discrimination in insurance and retirement plans (§ 49-2-309, MCA), and discrimination based on maternity and pregnancy-related leave (§§ 49-2-310 and -311, MCA). Pursuant to § 46-2-101(2), MCA, an “aggrieved…”
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.