Bailey v. State Farm, 2013 MT 119 (May 2, 2013) (4-2) (Cotter, J., for the majority; Rice, J. & Baker, J., dissenting)
Issue: (1) Whether the district court erred in finding no genuine issues of fact regarding defendants’ duty to procure underinsured motorist coverage for Baileys; and (2) whether the district court erred in failing to recognize and impose a heightened duty beyond a duty to procure requested coverage.
Short Answer: (1) Yes, and (2) the Court declines to address this issue.
Dissents: Justice Rice would conclude that the Baileys did not demonstrate genuine issues of material fact and would affirm. Justice Baker agrees, and writes separately to express her concern that the Court has in fact imposed a heightened duty on an insurance agent despite its claim that it is not addressing this issue.…