Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Farmers Union Mutual Insurance v. Horton

Montana Supreme Court

Decided April 10, 2003No. 02-677Published

1Concurrence

CHIEF JUSTICE GRAY,

specially concurring.

¶20 I join in the Court’s opinion which effectively holds that, because coverage is precluded via the clear and unambiguous “employee” exclusion, no other exclusion in the policy need be addressed and the case is at an end. The Court is entirely correct.

¶21 I write separately only to clarify that this case, which addresses what appears to be only a partial summary judgment, does not create an exception to our longstanding case law concluding that a grant of partial summary judgment is interlocutory and not appealable. See, e.g., Matter of Litigation…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In Re Litigation Relating to the Riot of September 22, 1991Montana Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Marriage of Grounds v. CowardMontana Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Kirchner v. Western Montana Mental Health CenterMontana Supreme Court · 1995

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

Powered by the Exa API