Legal Opinion

Canal Insurance v. Bunday

Montana Supreme Court

Decided June 18, 1991No. 90-620PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice McDONOUGH

This case involves a dispute between two insurers concerning who should pay the liabilities incurred by the insured, Gary Bunday d/b/a Bunday Trucking (Bunday), arising from a negligence case. The plaintiff, Canal Insurance Company (Canal), appeals the order of the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, denying its motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company’s (USF&G) motion for summary judgment. We reverse.

The parties raise several issues on appeal and cross-appeal. However, the first issue raised by Canal on its appeal is…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. CumiskeyMontana Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Harbor Insurance v. United Services Automobile Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1976
  3. Bauer Ranch, Inc. v. Mountain West Farm Bureau Mutual InsuranceMontana Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Hereford v. HerefordMontana Supreme Court · 1979
  5. McAlear v. Saint Paul Insurance CompaniesMontana Supreme Court · 1972

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Stutzman v. Safeco Insurance Co. of AmericaMontana Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Newbury v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.Montana Supreme Court · 2008
  3. Farmers Alliance Mutual Insurance v. HolemanMontana Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Watson v. DundasMontana Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Duensing v. Traveler's CompaniesMontana Supreme Court · 1993

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API