Legal Opinion

Diaz v. State

Montana Supreme Court

Decided November 6, 2013No. DA 12-0654PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice McGRATH

¶1 The State of Montana appeals from the District Court’s Order filed June 19,2012, denying the State’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Plaintiffs Diaz and Hoffman-Bernhardt were covered by the State of Montana’s employee healthcare benefit program established under Title 2, chapter 18, MCA (referred to as the Plan). The Plan is not subject to the insurance code, §33-1-102(7), MCA, and is funded by the State as an employee benefit. It covers over 30,000 State employees, dependents, and retirees. See generally Diaz v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield, et…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Skauge v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Diaz v. Blue Cross & Blue ShieldMontana Supreme Court · 2011
  3. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Montana, Inc. v. Montana State AuditorMontana Supreme Court · 2009
  4. Citizens for Responsible Development v. Board of County CommissionersMontana Supreme Court · 2009

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Winter v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceMontana Supreme Court · 2014
  2. Roose v. Lincoln County Employee Group Health PlanMontana Supreme Court · 2015
  3. Diaz v. StateMontana Supreme Court · 2016
  4. Diaz v. StateMontana Supreme Court · 2013
  5. Roose v. Lincoln County Employee Group Health PlanMontana Supreme Court · 2015

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

Powered by the Exa API