Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Smith v. National Union Fire Insurance Co.

Court of Workers Compensation of Montana

October 15, 1996

JAMES P. SMITH Petitioner
v.
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY Respondent/Insurer for RSA-USA INC./IDC SERVICES, INCORPORATED Employer.

          Submitted: September 6, 1996

          PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          Mike McCarter, Judge.

         Summary: Claimant moved for summary judgment based on Haag v. State Compensation Ins. Fund, 274 Mont. 109, 906 P.2d 693 (1995), alleging that his claim was not accepted or denied within 30 days as stated in section 390-71-606(1), MCA (1991). Respondent argued his claim is barred by his failure to notify his employer of his injury within 30 days. Neither party complied with ARM 24.5.329(3), which requires a brief in support of or opposition to a motion for summary judgment to include a statement of uncontroverted facts, in serial (not narrative) form, referencing specific pleadings, affidavits or other documents that support each specific fact.

         Held: If the motion required the Court to conclude that certain facts were established, it would be denied based on failure to comply with ARM 24.5.329(3). This motion, however, raises a purely legal question. The WCC concludes that failure to provide 30 days notice to an employer is a defense to liability. Haag precludes the insurer from raising any defense, including this one, if the claim was not accepted or denied within 30 days.

         Topics:

Constitutions, Statutes, Regulations and Rules: Montana Code Annotated: Section 39-71-606(1), MCA (1991). A claimant's failure to provide 30 days notice to an employer is a defense to liability. Haag v. Montana Schools Group Ins. Authority, 274 Mont. 109, 906 P.2d 693 (1995) precludes the insurer from raising any defense, including this one, if the claim was not accepted or denied within 30 days as required by section 390-71-606(1), MCA (1991)

         Constitutions, Statutes, Regulations and Rules: Workers' Compensation Court Rules: ARM 24.5.329(3). Neither party complied with ARM 24.5.329(3), which requires a brief in support of or opposition to a motion for summary judgment to include a statement of uncontroverted facts, in serial (not narrative) form, referencing specific pleadings, affidavits or other documents that support each specific fact. If this motion required the Court to conclude that certain facts were established, it would be denied based on failure to comply with ARM 24.5.329(3).

         Cases Discussed: Workers' Compensation Cases: Haag v. MSGIA. A claimant's failure to provide 30 days notice to an employer is a defense to liability. Haag v. Montana Schools Group Ins. Authority, 274 Mont. 109, 906 P.2d 693 (1995) precludes the insurer from raising any defense, including this one, if the claim was not accepted or denied within 30 days as required by section 390-71-606(1), MCA (1991). Claims: Acceptance. A claimant's failure to provide 30 days notice to an employer is a defense to liability. Haag v. Montana Schools Group Ins. Authority, 274 Mont. 109, 906 P.2d 693 (1995) precludes the insurer from raising any defense, including this one, if the claim was not accepted or denied within 30 days as required by section 390-71-606(1), MCA (1991).

         Claims: Notice to Employer or Insurer: Generally. A claimant's failure to provide 30 days notice to an employer is a defense to liability. Haag v. Montana Schools Group Ins. Authority, 274 Mont. 109, 906 P.2d 693 (1995) precludes the insurer from raising any defense, including this one, if the claim was not accepted or denied within 30 days as required by section 390-71-606(1), MCA (1991).

         Summary Judgment: Motion for Summary Judgment. Neither party complied with ARM 24.5.329(3), which requires a brief in support of or opposition to a motion for summary judgment to include a statement of uncontroverted facts, in serial (not narrative) form, referencing specific pleadings, affidavits or other documents that support each specific fact. If this motion required the Court to conclude that certain facts were established, it would be denied based on failure to comply with ARM 24.5.329(3).

         Petitioner in this case, James P. Smith (claimant), alleges that his claim for compensation was not accepted by the insurer within the 30 days specified by section 39-71-606(1), MCA (1991). He moves for summary judgment based on Haag v. Montana Schools Group Ins. Authority, 274 Mont. 109, 906 P.2d 693 (1995). Respondent, National Union Fire Insurance Company (National), resists the motion, arguing that claimant's failure to notify his employer of his injury within 30 days, as required by section 39-71-603, MCA, bars his claim for benefits.

         Factual Background and Restatement of the Issue

         Rule 24.5.329(3) of this Court governs the presentation of facts supporting a motion for summary judgment. It provides:

Any party filing a motion under this rule shall include in its brief a statement of uncontroverted facts, which shall set forth in full the specific facts on which the party relies in support of the motion. The specific facts shall be set forth in serial fashion and not in narrative form. As to each fact, the statement shall refer to a specific pleading, affidavit, or other document where the fact may be found. Any party opposing a motion filed under this rule shall include in their opposition a brief statement of genuine issues, setting forth the specific ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.