# Klaudt v. Flink

> Montana Supreme Court · January 28, 1983 · 202 Mont. 247

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9507705

## Case

- **Full name:** NEIL L. KLAUDT, Personal Rep. of the Estate of Scott A. Klaudt, Et Al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CALVIN E. FLINK and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Defendants and Respondents
- **Court:** Montana Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 28, 1983
- **Citations:** 202 Mont. 247; 658 P.2d 1065; 1983 Mont. LEXIS 618
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Morrison
- **Judges:** Daly, Morrison, Weber, Shea, Haswell, Harrison, Sheehy
- **Cited by:** 63 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled in part, on other grounds by Fode v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 221 Mont. 282 (1986).
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9507705

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating issue as whether § 33-18-201, MCA, "confers a private cause of action" and holding that it affirmatively "create[d]" statutory duties to private parties the breach of which is "the basis for a civil action"
- stating issue as whether § 33-18-201, MCA, “confers a private cause of action” and holding that § 33-18-201, MCA, created duties to third-party claimants, a breach of which is “the basis for a civil action”
- stating issue as whether § 33-18-201, MCA, "confers a private cause of action" and holding that it "does create" duties to private parties, a breach of which is "the basis for a civil action"
- holding that a third-party claimant has a cause of action against a defendant's insurer for failure to settle
- recognizing implied private right of action for damages based on violations of § 33-18-201(6), MCA

## Opinion text

MR. JUSTICE MORRISON,
concurring and dissenting:
I concur in the majority’s holding that the statutes in question create an independent action on behalf of a tort victim against the tort feasor’s insurer. I dissent from the holding in the majority opinion which permits the action against the insurer to be consolidated with the action against the tort feasor.
The failure of insurance companies to expeditiously settle claims gave rise to passage of the legislation now before this Court. The majority holding in this case will certainly cause a much more expeditious handling of claims.
I am concerned about the prejudice which can result from consolidating the two actions. Additionally, lay jurors will have a very difficult time separating evidence which relates to the case against the insurer from evidence which bears upon the issues in the principle action against the tort feasor. The likely confusion and potential prejudice lead me to oppose consolidation.
I would reverse and remand allowing the action against the insurance company to be brought at any time but would hold that the action against the insurer cannot be consolidated with the action against the tort feasor.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9507705. Public record. Not legal advice.