Peter R. Sherner and Deborah Sherner v. National Loss Control Services Corporation, Conoco, Inc., Crawford & Company, Cathy Andersen, and John Does I-V

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court reviewed summary judgment dismissing the Sherners’ claims against an employer, insurers, claims adjusters, and related parties arising from an investigation and criminal prosecution concerning alleged workers’ compensation fraud. The court affirmed summary judgment based on statutory immunity for reporting insurance fraud and the absence of evidence supporting malicious prosecution or personal liability by the adjuster. It vacated the costs portion of the judgment and remanded for proper cost-taxing procedures.

Holdings

1. The District Court properly granted summary judgment to Andersen because the record showed that she acted within the course and scope of her employment and did not provide evidence that she personally acted negligently or tortiously.
2. In the absence of malice, § 33-1-1210(1), MCA, immunizes an insurer, its agents and employees, independent adjusters, and private persons from civil liability for reporting information or cooperating with an insurance-fraud investigation. The applicable statutory definition of malice is the definition in § 1-1-204(3), MCA.
3. Summary judgment for the defendants was proper because the Sherners failed to produce evidence that the defendants instigated, prosecuted, or continued the criminal proceeding or acted with malice.
4. The District Court erred by entering judgment with the claimed cost amounts before the Sherners' five-day statutory period to object had expired. The cost portion of the judgment and the January 6, 2004 Notice were vacated, and the matter was remanded for proper taxation of costs.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Cathy Andersen acted within the course and scope of her employment and was therefore not personally liable for the challenged conduct.
2. Whether Montana Code Annotated § 33-1-1210 immunized the defendants from civil liability for reporting and cooperating with an insurance-fraud investigation.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper on the Sherners' malicious-prosecution claim.
4. Whether the District Court properly set the amount of costs without allowing the Sherners the statutory period to object.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded