# Newbury v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.

> Montana Supreme Court · May 1, 2008 · 343 Mont. 279

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9511951

## Case

- **Full name:** GERALD NEWBURY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY INS. CO. OF BLOOMINGTON, ILLINOIS, Licensed to Do Business in the State of Montana; And STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. OF BLOOMINGTON, ILLINOIS, Licensed to Do Business in the State of Montana, Defendants and Appellees
- **Court:** Montana Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 1, 2008
- **Citations:** 343 Mont. 279; 184 P.3d 1021; 2008 MT 156; 2008 Mont. LEXIS 225
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Rice
- **Judges:** James C. Nelson
- **Cited by:** 45 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9511951

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- rejecting alleged ambiguity in workers’ compensation exclusion in insurance policy

## Opinion text

JUSTICE RICE
concurring.
¶51 I concur in the conclusions reached by the Court, but under a different rationale. Under Issue 1, I agree that the policy language here is clear and unambiguous. I further agree that Hardy and Mitchell provide no support for Newbury’s arguments because the policy language in those cases is distinguishable from the language here, although not for the reasons expressed by the Court in ¶ 27. The policies in those cases contained offset provisions which made the coverage as stated on the declarations page illusory. Such illusory coverage does not exist here, and it is for that reason-and not that the claimants in those cases were not “adequately compensated” or that the insurers there refused to stack the coverages-that I reject Newbury’s reliance on those cases. I continue to maintain that these others issues were wrongly reasoned and decided by the Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9511951. Public record. Not legal advice.