Tidyman's Manangement Services Inc. v. Davis

¶55 In my opinion, the District Court and this Court have erred (1) in finding that NUFI had a duty to defend, without considering whether the plaintiffs’ complaint “alleges facts, which if proven, would result in coverage,” Farmers Union Mut. Ins. Co. v. Staples, 2004 MT 108, ¶ 21, 321 Mont. 99, 90 P.3d 381, and (2) in granting summary judgment *108although there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether NUFI breached a duty to defend. I believe the District Court and this Court have failed to recognize that an insurer’s assertion of an opinion regarding the existence of coverage does…