Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Estate of Gleason v. Central United Life Insurance

Montana Supreme Court

Decided May 20, 2015No. DA 13-0644Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice McKtNN On

¶88 I agree with our adoption of the notice-prejudice rule, but would do so pursuant to a different analysis. I am uncomfortable when we set *240forth a new rule which does not provide adequate guidance or rationale to insureds and insurers in thé handling of insurance claims. Additionally, after examining our precedent regarding the notice-prejudice rule, I am convinced our conclusion that CULI did not have a reasonable basis in law to deny the untimely claims is contrary to our holdings in Redies v. Attorneys Liability Protection Society, 2007 MT 9, 335 Mont. 233, 150 P.3d 930, Shilhanek v. D-2…

2Cases cited48 opinions

  1. Brakeman v. Potomac Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  2. Story v. City of BozemanMontana Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Alcazar v. HayesTennessee Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Great American Insurance v. C. G. Tate Construction Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  5. Stutzman v. Safeco Insurance Co. of AmericaMontana Supreme Court · 1997

43 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