Montana Claims Compliance
Key regulatory requirements, correspondence deadlines, and mandated forms for Montana (MT).
Quick Reference
Key Deadlines
Requirements
- Mandated Forms
- Catastrophe Rules
- Separate P&C / Life & Health
- Fraud Warning
- Depreciation Notice
- E-Delivery (with_consent)
Regulatory Authority
Office of the Montana State Auditor, Commissioner of Securities and Insurance (CSI)
Phone: 406-444-2040 or 800-332-6148; Website: https://csimt.gov/; Address: 840 Helena Ave, Helena, MT 59601
Bad Faith: Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-242
Lines of Business
Key Statutes
- Montana Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA), Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-101 et seq.
Montana handles claims correspondence according to specific state regulations. Requirements vary depending on the line of business and specific claim circumstances.
Acknowledgment
Every claim must be acknowledged within a reasonable time of receipt. The acknowledgment should identify the insurance policy and coverage at issue.
Denial
A written denial must be issued within a reasonable time. The denial must reference the specific policy provisions, conditions, or exclusions relied upon.
Statutory Language
No specific statutory language mandated beyond standard disclosures.
LOB-Specific Requirements
Regulatory requirements for Montana, grouped by line of business. Select a chip to filter.
- SOL Notice In Denial Required
- CUSTOMARY (Standard market conduct practices dictate inclusion if applicable)
- Unfair Claims Practices Act RefStatutory
- Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-201
- Prompt Payment Statute RefStatutory
- Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-232
- Public Adjuster RegulationsStatutory
- The statutory definition of a public adjuster excludes a person who provides an estimate of work to an insurer on behalf of an insured, provided the insured is notified of all communications between that person and the insurer related to the estimates; Mont. Code Ann. § 33-17-102(21)(b)
- Proof Of Loss RequirementsStatutory
- An insurer shall furnish forms of proof of loss for completion upon the written request of any person claiming to have a loss; Mont. Code Ann. § 33-15-503
- Suit Limitation PeriodStatutory
- A policyholder must file a bad faith suit under the UTPA within two years of the date of the violation; Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-242(7)
Montana Case Law
Published decisions that shape claim-handling and correspondence practice in Montana. Pair these with the statutory deadlines above.
- Case Law
Mark Ibsen, Inc. v. Caring for Montanans, Inc., 383 Mont. 346
371 P.3d 446 (2016)
Status UpdatesHomeownersA party is not entitled to obtain private enforcement of a regulatory UTPA statute unless the legislature specifically intended that statute to be enforceable by private parties.
- Case Law
Brewington v. Employers Fire Ins. Co., 297 Mont. 243
992 P.2d 237 (1999)
Status UpdatesHomeownersThe statutory restriction in MCA § 33-18-242(3) that bars common law bad faith actions for claims handling applies exclusively to "insureds" (first-party claimants). Third-party claimants are not barred by this statute and may continue to assert common law bad faith claims regarding claims handling practices. Current Status: Good law. - Mark Ibsen, Inc. v. Caring for Montanans, Inc., 383 Mont.
- Case Law
Thomas v. Northwestern Nat'l Ins. Co., 292 Mont. 357
973 P.2d 804 (1998)
Status UpdatesHomeownersAn insured may bring a common law bad faith claim against an insurer for conduct that is entirely unrelated to claims handling (such as underwriting or renewal failures).
- Case Law
Palmer by Diacon v. Farmers Ins. Exch
861 P.2d 895, 902 (1993)
Bad FaithGeneral Liability) . Notably, first-party insureds are statutorily prohibited from bringing common law bad faith tort claims regarding claims handling and must rely exclusively on the UTPA .
- Case Law
Portal Pipe Line Co. v. Stonewall Ins. Co
845 P.2d 746 (1993)
Reservation of RightsAutoCommercial Autoclarified that this strict estoppel applies specifically when the insurer assumes the defense without an ROR or completely breaches the duty to defend. If the insurer never assumed the defense at all, they might not be estopped from asserting defenses, though they will be liable for breach of contract .
- Case Law
Portal Pipe Line Co. v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 256 Mont. 211
845 P.2d 746 (1993)
Closing LettersHomeownersAn insurer has an obligation under § 33-18-201(14) to inform the insured of all policy defenses upon which it intends to rely when explaining its coverage position. - Source Type: Case Law (Montana Supreme Court). - Hop v. Safeco Ins. Co., 2011 MT 215, 361 Mont. 510, 261 P.3d 981 - Holding: Demonstrated the severe litigation consequences of silent file closures.
Show 15 more cases
- Case Law
Spadaro v. Midland Claims Serv
740 P.2d 1105 (1987)
Bad FaithCommercial Auto) . Similarly, a claimant's failure to provide requested medical records or evidence can justify a delay or denial and defeat a bad faith claim .
- Case Law
Jessen v. O'Daniel
210 F. Supp. 317 (D. Mont. 1962), affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, 329 F.2d 60 (1964)
Status UpdatesGeneral Liability. In Jessen, the federal district court, applying Montana law, outlined the factors necessary to determine if an insurer acted in bad faith when rejecting a settlement offer within policy limits . The court identified six critical factors that must be evaluated, which have subsequently become a bedrock of Montana bad faith jurisprudence .
- Case LawStatus UpdatesHomeowners
clarified that the prohibition against common law bad faith in MCA § 33-18-242(3) applies only to "insureds" (first-party), meaning third-party claimants retain the right to bring common law bad faith claims . In third-party scenarios, broader common law duties regarding communication do exist.
- Case LawDiminished ValueCommercial Auto
wherein the court analyzed a policy that limited the insurer's liability to the "actual cost of replacement of the property" . The court ruled that "replacement" intrinsically means restoring the property to its exact pre-injury condition, declaring that there is no complete restoration unless there has been no diminution in value after the repair .
- Case LawReservation of RightsCommercial Auto
Consequence of Failure Conclusive presumption of prejudice; Equitable Estoppel barring all coverage defenses; Bad faith liability. Safeco Ins. Co. v. Ellinghouse (1986); Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-201
- Case LawReservation of RightsCommercial Auto
which highlighted that an insurer refusing to defend its insured does so "at its peril" .
- Case LawStatus UpdatesHomeowners
. The Montana Supreme Court held that plaintiffs are not entitled to private enforcement of regulatory UTPA statutes unless the legislature specifically intended them to be privately enforceable .
- Case LawStatus UpdatesAuto
- https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/mt-supreme-court/1453789.html
- Case LawReservation of RightsCommercial Auto
; Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-201
- Case LawReservation of RightsCommercial Auto
; Mid-Century v. Windfall (2016)
- Case LawDiminished ValueAutoCommercial Auto
required insurers to proactively assess and pay first-party diminished value claims —Ohio imposes no such obligation. There is no Ohio statute, administrative regulation, or leading case law requiring an insurer to spontaneously assess a vehicle for diminished value or to inform a third-party claimant that such compensation is available .
- Case LawStatus UpdatesHomeowners
the Montana Supreme Court examined whether an insured could ever sue for common law bad faith . The Court held that an insured can bring a common law bad faith claim, but only if the insurer's conduct was completely unrelated to "the handling of an insurance claim" .
- Case LawStatus UpdatesAuto
- https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mt-supreme-court/1091138.html
- Reservation of RightsCommercial AutoHomeowners
the Montana Supreme Court held that an insurer is entitled to seek recoupment of defense costs, provided two strict conditions are met:
- Case LawReservation of RightsCommercial Auto
Deadline Must be sent "promptly" and within a "reasonable time" after a coverage question is identified. Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-201(5); Ellinghouse (1986)
Historical court cases are for reference only and may be superseded, distinguished, or abrogated.
Applicable Letter Templates
No letter templates currently found for this jurisdiction.