Hogenson Construction of North Dakota v. Montana State Fund

Summary

The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed summary judgment for Montana State Fund in a dispute over whether the insurer had a duty to defend a North Dakota construction company in an Oklahoma workers' compensation claim. The court held that the claim was outside the policy because it was filed more than twelve months after the injury, as required by Montana law, and therefore State Fund had no duty to defend. The court also concluded that the undisputed injury and filing dates did not require the insurer to resolve a factual dispute in favor of coverage.

Holdings

1. State Fund had no duty to defend because the policy covered only liability under Montana's Workers' Compensation Act, and Reynolds's claim was filed after the Act's mandatory twelve-month claim-presentment deadline.
2. State Fund was not required to resolve the asserted factual dispute in favor of coverage because the undisputed injury date and claim-filing date independently established that the claim was outside the policy.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Montana State Fund had a duty to defend Hogenson in the Oklahoma workers' compensation proceeding under the policy.
2. Whether the alleged factual dispute concerning when Hogenson learned of Reynolds's injury required State Fund to resolve coverage in favor of a defense.
3. Whether the district court properly granted State Fund summary judgment on Hogenson's claims for breach of contract and common-law bad faith.

Disposition

affirmed