FITZGERALD v AETNA INSURANCE CO

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13822 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1978 DONNA S. FITZGERALD, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of RONALD E. FITZGERALD, Deceased, Plaintiff and Respondent, AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, MARKEL INSURANCE COMPANY and CANADIAN SURETY COl4PANY, Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of the Eiqhth Judicial District, Honorable William Coder, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Church, Harris, Johnson and Williams, Great Falls, Xontana Cresap S. PlcCracken argued, Great Falls, Montana For Respondent: Marra, Wenz and Iwen, Great Falls, Montana Joseph Flarra argued, Great Palls, Montana Dola Wilson, Great Falls, Montana Submitted: January 18, 1978 Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Mr. Aetna I n s u r a n c e Company a p p e a l s from an o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Cascade County, d e n y i n g i t s motion f o r summary judgment and g r a n t i n g p a r t i a l summary judgment i n f a v o r o f t h e p l a i n t i f f F i t z g e r a l d . I n December 1973, Donna F i t z g e r a l d f i l e d s u i t i n S t a t e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a g a i n s t Turner V a l l e y T r a n s p o r t ( T u r n e r V a l l e y ) , and Emmanuel S t . L o u i s ( S t . L o u i s ) , b o t h motor c a r r i e r s from Edmonton, A l b e r t a , Canada, and Rudolph C o l l i c o t t , a t r u c k d r i v e r , f o r a l l e g e d l y c a u s i n g t h e wrongful d e a t h of h e r husband, Ronald E. F i t z g e r a l d . F i t z g e r a l d was k i l l e d November 2 3 , 1973, i n a c o l l i s i o n n e a r Lewistown, Montana, between h i s t r u c k and a t r a c t o r - t r a i l e r Collicott. u n i t d r i v e n by C o l l i c o t t was t r a n s p o r t i n g a l o a d of p i p e f o r Turner V a l l e y from Edmonton, A l b e r t a , t o G i l l e t t e , Wyoming. T u r n e r V a l l e y owned t h e t r a i l e r i n v o l v e d i n t h e c o l l i s i o n , b u t had h i r e d b o t h t h e t r a c t o r and t h e d r i v e r C o l l i c o t t from S t . Louis. The d e f e n d a n t s Turner V a l l e y , S t . L o u i s , and C o l l i c o t t removed t h e wrongful d e a t h s u i t t o F e d e r a l C o u r t . A nonjury t r i a l t h e r e r e s u l t e d i n a judgment a g a i n s t Turner V a l l e y and C o l l i c o t t f o r $190,739.00, p l u s c o s t s , and i n a f i n d i n g t h a t S t . L o u i s w a s n o t bound t o indemnify Turner V a l l e y . N o a p p e a l w a s t a k e n from t h i s judgment. At t h e t i m e of t h e accident Turner V a l l e y was i n s u r e d by Markel I n s u r a n c e Company of Canada (Markel) under a primary v e h i c l e p o l i c y c o v e r i n g wholly owned and s c h e d u l e d v e h i c l e s , and by Aetna I n s u r a n c e Company (Aetna) under a c o m p o s i t e m e r c a n t i l e p o l i c y a f f o r d i n g a l i m i t e d form of automobile l i a b i l i t y coverage. Aetna defended Turner V a l l e y i n t h e F e d e r a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t t r i a l a f t e r Markel dropped i t s d e f e n s e of Turner V a l l e y . S t . L o u i s w a s i n s u r e d by Canadian S u r e t y Company (Canadian S u r e t y ) . On J u l y 3 0 , 1975, Donna F i t z g e r a l d f i l e d t h i s s u i t i n t h e Cascade County D i s t r i c t C o u r t a g a i n s t Aetna, Markel, and Canadian S u r e t y t o c o l l e c t on t h e judgment g r a n t e d h e r i n Federal Court. I n h e r c o m p l a i n t s h e p r a y e d f o r t h e amount of t h e judgment s h e had r e c e i v e d i n F e d e r a l C o u r t , p l u s i n t e r e s t ; f o r p u n i t i v e damages; f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s ; and f o r damages f o r m e n t a l d i s t r e s s a l l e g e d l y caused h e r b e c a u s e of t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' l a c k o f good f a i t h and m a l i c i o u s and o p p r e s s i v e c o n d u c t . Aetna t w i c e removed t h e s u i t t o F e d e r a l C o u r t , b u t e a c h t i m e p l a i n t i f f was s u c c e s s f u l i n remanding i t t o s t a t e c o u r t . Markel and Canadian S u r e t y were e v e n t u a l l y d i s m i s s e d from t h e s u i t f o r l a c k o f p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . Following p r e t r i a l d i s c o v e r y , Aetna moved f o r summary judgment on a l l i s s u e s and Donna F i t z g e r a l d moved f o r p a r t i a l summary judgment as t o t h e amount Aetna a l l e g e d l y owed h e r a s T u r n e r V a l l e y ' s i n s u r e r under t h e F e d e r a l C o u r t judgment. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d a n o r d e r d e n y i n g A e t n a ' s motion f o r s m n a r y judgment and g r a n t i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s motion f o r p a r t i a l summary judgment. Aetna a p p e a l s from t h i s o r d e r . It has a l s o f i l e d a t p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l ( ~ o c k e No. 13888) i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h i t s a p p e a l r e q u e s t i n g t h i s C o u r t t o d i r e c t t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o dismiss p l a i n t i f f ' s claims f o r p u n i t i v e damages and t o e n t e r summary judgment i n i t s f a v o r on t h e m e r i t s of t h e c a s e . Aetna r a i s e s t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s on a p p e a l and i n i t s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l : 1. Did t h e ~ i s t r i c C o u r t e r r i n denying A e t n a ' s t motion f o r summary judgment and i n e n t e r i n g p a r t i a l summary judgment f o r p l a i n t i f f ? 2. Is a c l a i m f o r p u n i t i v e damages a l l o w a b l e under s e c t i o n 17-208, R.C.M. 1947, i n a s u i t by a t h i r d p a r t y a g a i n s t a n a u t o m o b i l e l i a b i l i t y i n s u r e r t o c o l l e c t a judgment p r e v i o u s l y e n t e r e d a g a i n s t t h e i n s u r e d ? The f i r s t i s s u e r e l a t e s t o p o l i c y c o v e r a g e and t o t h e v a l i d i t y o f c e r t a i n p o l i c y d e f e n s e s which Aetna a s s e r t s p r o t e c t s i t from l i a b i l i t y a g a i n s t t h e i n s u r e d , and t h e r e f o r e from l i a b i l i t y a g a i n s t p l a i n t i f f : (1) A e t n a l s i n s u r a n c e c o n t r a c t w i t h T u r n e r V a l l e y c o v e r e d o n l y "nonowned" v e h i c l e s ; and ( 2 ) c e r t a i n " s t a t u t o r y c o n d i t i o n s " i n A e t n a l s p o l i c y , i n s e r t e d i n compliance w i t h A l b e r t a , Canada law, suspended c o v e r a g e w h i l e a c o v e r e d v e h i c l e w a s engaged i n a n i l l e g a l o p e r a t i o n o r w h i l e a n i n t o x i c a t e d d r i v e r was d r i v i n g a covered v e h i c l e . Aetna c o n t e n d s t h a t any one of t h e s e i s s u f f i c i e n t t o b a r i t from l i a b i l i t y . F i t z g e r a l d responds t h a t Aetna's p o l i c y c o v e r e d t h e t r a c t o r - t r a i l e r u n i t and t h a t T u r n e r V a l l e y d i d n o t v i o l a t e any of t h e " s t a t u t o r y c o n d i t i o n s " . F i t z g e r a l d f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t even i f T u r n e r V a l l e y d i d v i o l a t e any of t h o s e c o n d i t i o n s , I n t e r s t a t e Commerce Comm i s s i o n r e g u l a t i o n s p r e v e n t Aetna from a s s e r t i n g them a s d e f e n s e s . Aetna c o u n t e r s t h a t i f Turner V a l l e y and t h u s , Aetna, i s t o b e h e l d t o I . C . C . r e g u l a t i o n s even though Turner V a l l e y d i d n o t have an I . C . C . permit t o operate, F i t z g e r a l d s h o u l d a l s o be h e l d t o t h o s e same r e g u l a t i o n s . The I . C . C . r e g u l a t i o n s i n f o r c e a t t h e t i m e of t h e a c c i d e n t waived a n i n s u r e r ' s p o l i c y d e f e n s e s a s t o t h e f i r s t $25,000.00 of insurance. Because of o u r d e c i s i o n t h a t no p o l i c y con- d i t i o n s were v i o l a t e d , w e need n o t d i s c u s s t h e i s s u e o f w h e t h e r and t o what e x t e n t I . C . C . r e g u l a t i o n s waived A e t n a ' s policy defenses. The i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y which Aetna s o l d t o T u r n e r V a l l e y was a "Composite M e r c a n t i l e P o l i c y " f o r f i r e i n s u r a n c e , i n l a n d m a r i n e i n s u r a n c e , r o b b e r y and b u r g l a r y i n s u r a n c e , a s w e l l a s g e n e r a l comprehensive l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e . w i t h i n t h e l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e was a n "S.P.F. Non-owned Automobile P o l i c y " . Included No. 6 S t a n d a r d Section A of t h a t policy, e n t i t l e d "Third P a r t y L i a b i l i t y " contained t h e b a s i c autom o b i l e i n s u r i n g agreement: "The I n s u r e r a g r e e s t o indemnify t h e I n s u r e d a g a i n s t t h e l i a b i l i t y imposed by l a w upon t h e I n s u r e d f o r l o s s o r damage a r i s i n g from t h e u s e o r o p e r a t i o n o f any a u t o m o b i l e n o t owned i n whole o r i n p a r t by o r l i c e n s e d i n t h e name of t h e I n s u r e d * * *." Both p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t t h e t r a c t o r - t r a i l e r u n i t i s a n "automobile" w i t h i n t h e t e r m s of t h e p o l i c y . The d i f f i c u l t y a r i s e s b e c a u s e o f t h e s p l i t o w n e r s h i p of t h e u n i t . Turner V a l l e y owned o n l y t h e t r a i l e r ; i t h i r e d b o t h t h e t r a c t o r and t h e d r i v e r C o l l i c o t t from S t . L o u i s . I t e m 5 i n the defini- t i o n s e c t i o n o f t h e p o l i c y , however, p r o v i d e s t h a t f o r purposes o f t h e I n s u r e r ' s l i a b i l i t y under S e c t i o n A of t h e p o l i c y , a n o t o r v e h i c l e and a t r a i l e r a t t a c h e d t o it c o n s t i t u t e one automobile. Therefore, w e s h a l l t r e a t t h i s u n i t a s one automobile. A d d i t i o n a l l y , T u r n e r V a l l e y ' s i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y form i s e x p r e s s l y made a p a r t o f t h e i n s u r a n c e c o n t r a c t . I t e m 5 of t h a t form d e s i g n a t e s t h e c o v e r a g e p r o v i d e d f o r " h i r e d a u t o mobiles". Typed i n t h i s s p a c e a r e t h e s e words: "NOT ANTICIPATED, COVERED I F ANY". Both p a r t i e s c o n t e n d t h a t t h e l a n g u a g e of t h e b a s i c a u t o m o b i l e i n s u r i n g a g r e e m e n t i n t h e p o l i c y i s unambiguous, although each i n t e r p r e t s t h i s language d i f f e r e n t l y : Fitz- g e r a l d a r g u e s t h a t i t c o v e r s a u t o m o b i l e s which a r e p a r t i a l l y owned by t h e i n s u r e d ; Aetna a r g u e s t h a t it d o e s n o t . I n o u r view, t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e b a s i c a u t o m o b i l e i n s u r i n g agreement i s ambiguous b e c a u s e i t i s s u b j e c t t o two r e p u g n a n t and i n c o n s i s t e n t meanings. The language c o u l d b e c o n s t r u e d t o p r o v i d e c o v e r a g e f o r a n a u t o m o b i l e n o t wholly owned o r n o t p a r t i a l l y owned by Turner V a l l e y i n which c a s e c o v e r a g e would be a f f o r d e d h e r e . On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e language could be construed t o provide coverage only f o r an a u t o m o b i l e which i s n e i t h e r owned i n whole n o r i n p a r t by Turner V a l l e y i n which c a s e t h e r e would b e no c o v e r a g e i n t h i s accident. Where a n a m b i g u i t y i n a n i n s u r a n c e c o n t r a c t e x i s t s , e v e r y d o u b t s h o u l d b e r e s o l v e d i n f a v o r of t h e i n s u r e d and t h e p o l i c y s h o u l d be s t r i c t l y c o n s t r u e d a g a i n s t t h e i n s u r e r . Alpha Real E s t a t e Development, I n c . v . Aetna L i f e Co., (1977), Mont. , 553 P.2d v. Neal, Casualty 5 7 0 P.2d 585, 34 St.Rep. F a s s i o v . Montana P h y s i c i a n s ' S e r v i c e , , & 998, 33 St.Rep. (1976), 1130; Mont. 457; Mountain West Farm Bur. ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169 Mont. 317, 547 P.2d 79. T h e r e a r e l o g i c a l r e a s o n s f o r t h i s r u l e of p o l i c y construction. I n o r d i n a r y c o n t r a c t law, t h e l a n g u a g e i s c o n s t r u e d most s t r o n g l y a g a i n s t t h e p a r t y who d r a f t e d t h e c o n t r a c t , b e c a u s e i t i s h i s language which c r e a t e d t h e a m b i g u i t y o r u n c e r t a i n t y of meaning. S e c t i o n 13-720, 1947; S c i n s k i v . G r e a t N o r t h e r n L i f e I n s . Co., Mont. 106, 111, 99 P.2d 218, R.C.M. (1940), 1 1 0 ~ d d i t i o n a l l y , an i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y i s an a d h e s i o n c o n t r a c t . Equal b a r g a i n i n g s t r e n g t h between t h e i n s u r e d and t h e i n s u r e r c o n c e r n i n g t h e t e r m s of t h e p o l i c y simply d o e s n o t e x i s t ; t h e i n s u r e r d r a f t s t h e l a n g u a g e of t h e p o l i c y and o f f e r s i t t o t h e i n s u r e d on a take-it-or-leave-it b a s i s ; t h e i n s u r e d h a s no v o i c e i n i t s terms o r language. S t e v e n v. F i d e l i t y and C a s u a l t y Co. of N e w York, ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 27 C a l - R p t r . 172, 377 P . 2 d 284, 292-93. F i n a l l y , t h e e x t e n t of c o v e r a g e i s c a p a b l e of c l e a r , l u c i d and unambiguous d e f i n i t i o n which t h e i n s u r e r , by a c c i d e n t o r d e s i g n , f a i l e d t o e x p r e s s ; h e r e , f o r example, had Aetna i n t e n d e d t o l i m i t i t s c o v e r a g e t o a u t o m o b i l e s n e i t h e r owned i n whole n o r i n p a r t , it c o u l d c l e a r l y have s o s t a t e d . A c c o r d i n g l y , we c o n s t r u e t h e a m b i g u i t y a g a i n s t t h e i n s u r e r and i n f a v o r o f t h e i n s u r e d . W construe the basic e a u t o m o b i l e i n s u r i n g agreement i n S e c t i o n A of t h e p o l i c y t o mean t h a t c o v e r a g e i s p r o v i d e d f o r a n a u t o m o b i l e n o t owned i n p a r t by t h e i n s u r e d . A s t h e automobile i n q u e s t i o n i s o n e u n i t and p a r t of t h a t u n i t was owned by S t . L o u i s , coverage i s afforded Turner Valley here. T h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n i s f u r t h e r s t r e n g t h e n e d by t h e p o l i c y a p p l i c a t i o n which i s e x p r e s s l y made a p a r t of t h e i n s u r a n c e contract. I t provides t h a t " h i r e d automobiles" coverage, w h i l e " n o t a n t i c i p a t e d " i s " c o v e r e d i f any". An i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y i s t o b e r e a d a s a whole a n d , i f p o s s i b l e , t h e v a r i o u s p a r t s a r e t o be r e c o n c i l e d and g i v e n meaning and e f f e c t . A l e k s i c h v . Mutual B e n e f i t H e a l t h 118 Mont. 223, 164 P.2d 372. & A c c i d e n t Assn., (1945), Since t h e t r a c t o r u n i t w a s c l e a r l y a " h i r e d a u t o m o b i l e " , i t was c o v e r e d by t h e e x p r e s s t e r m s of t h e p o l i c y . To h o l d o t h e r w i s e would deny e f f e c t t o t h i s p r o v i s i o n of t h e p o l i c y i n o u r view. The second and t h i r d p o l i c y d e f e n s e s which Aetna a s s e r t s a r e based upon c o n d i t i o n s r e q u i r e d by A l b e r t a l a w t o b e included i n every insurance c o n t r a c t w r i t t e n i n t h e province o f A l b e r t a , Canada. ALTA. REV. STAT., Ch. 1 8 7 , 8288. ~hese s t a t u t o r y c o n d i t i o n s a r e a t t a c h e d a s endorsements t o A e t n a ' s p o l i c y w i t h Turner V a l l e y . They p r o v i d e i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : " P r o h i b i t e d U s e by O t h e r s . " ( 2 ) The i n s u r e d s h a l l n o t p e r m i t , s u f f e r , a l l o w o r c o n n i v e a t t h e u s e of t h e a u t o m o b i l e " ( a ) by any p e r s o n under t h e intoxicating l i q u o r o r drugs extent a s t o be f o r the t i m e of t h e p r o p e r c o n t r o l of t h e i n f l u e n c e of t o such a n being incapable automobile; o r " ( c ) f o r any i l l i c i t o r p r o h i b i t e d t r a d e o r transportation". The A l b e r t a Lnsurance A c t , ALTA. REV. STAT., Ch. 1 8 7 , 8288, r e q u i r e s t h a t p o l i c i e s i s s u e d t h e r e u n d e r i n c l u d e as a p a r t of t h e p o l i c y p r o v i s i o n s c e r t a i n " s t a t u t o r y c o n d i t i o n s " . P l a i n t i f f contends t h a t t h e s e s t a t u t o r y c o n d i t i o n s do n o t apply t o a covered v e h i c l e involved i n an a c c i d e n t occurring o u t s i d e of A l b e r t a , Canada. She a r g u e s t h a t t h e p h r a s e " i n these s t a t u t o r y conditions" indicates t h a t these conditions a r e applicable only i n Alberta. W e hold t h a t t h i s contention i s untenable. These c o n d i t i o n s by s t a t u t e a r e deemed t o b e a p a r t of e v e r y insurance contract w r i t t e n i n Alberta. 187, § 2 8 8 ( 1 ) ( a ) . ALTA REV. STAT., ch. Additionally, they w e r e s p e c i f i c a l l y w r i t t e n i n t o t h e "Endorsement" S e c t i o n of t h i s p o l i c y . No language i n t h i s p o l i c y l i m i t s t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n s o l e l y t o t h e p r o v i n c e o f A l b e r t a , Canada. They t h e r e f o r e form a p a r t of t h e c o n t r a c t f o r a l l p u r p o s e s . I n i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law i n Donna F i t z g e r a l d ' s s u i t a g a i n s t Turner V a l l e y , S t . L o u i s , and C o l l i c o t t , t h e F e d e r a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t a t t h e t i m e of t h e a c c i d e n t C o l l i c o t t was drunk and t h a t C o l l i c o t t ' s drunkenness was s u f f i c i e n t t o i m p a i r h i s d r i v i n g c a p a c i t y . F i t z g e r a l d v . Turner V a l l e y T r a n s p o r t , Civ. No. 3213 (D. Mont. 1 9 7 5 ) . Aetna c o n t e n d s t h a t under t h e s t a t u t o r y con- d i t i o n s i n i t s p o l i c y w i t h Turner Valley, t h i s f i n d i n g a b s o l v e s Aetna from l i a b i l i t y t o Turner V a l l e y and h e n c e , t o the plaintiff. The s t a t u t o r y c o n d i t i o n i n v o l v e d h e r e , however, p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e insured s h a l l n o t "permit, s u f f e r , allow o r connive" a t t h e u s e of a n i n s u r e d a u t o m o b i l e by a p e r s o n who i s i n c a p a c i t a t e d because of l i q u o r . Webster's d e f i n e s "permit" t o mean c o n s e n t t o o r a u t h o r i z e ; " s u f f e r " t o mean n o t t o f o r b i d o r h i n d e r ; " a l l o w " t o mean approve o r s a n c t i o n ; and " c o n n i v e " t o mean f a i l t o t a k e a c t i o n a g a i n s t a known wrongdoing o r m i s b e h a v i o r . Webster's Third I n t e r n a t i o n a l D i c t i o n a r y (Unabridged, 1 9 7 1 ) . A s used h e r e we u n d e r s t a n d t h e s e t e r m s t o mean t h a t t h e i n s u r e d must f i r s t have knowledge t h a t t h e u s e r i s engaged i n a p r o h i b i t e d a c t i v i t y b e f o r e h e may " p e r m i t , s u f f e r , a l l o w o r c o n n i v e " a t such u s e . F o r Aetna t o s u c c e s s f u l l y a s s e r t t h i s s t a t u t o r y c o n d i t i o n , i t must show t h a t Turner V a l l e y had knowledge t h a t C o l l i c o t t w a s o p e r a t i n g t h e t r a c t o r - t r a i l e r u n i t while he was i n c a p a c i t a t e d b e c a u s e of d r i n k . Aetna h a s shown no such knowledge by Turner V a l l e y , and d u r i n g o r a l argument h a s a d m i t t e d t h a t T u r n e r V a l l e y i n f a c t had no knowledge of C o l l i c o t t ' s drunkenness. This policy defense, t h e r e f o r e , fails. The t h i r d p o l i c y d e f e n s e i n v o l v e s t h e i n s u r e d ' s u s e of the tractor-trailer u n i t i n i l l i c i t o r prohibited trade or transportation. The F e d e r a l C o u r t found t h a t n e i t h e r Turner V a l l e y , S t . L o u i s n o r C o l l i c o t t had e i t h e r a Montana ail road Commission o r a n I n t e r s t a t e Commerce Commission p e r m i t t o o p e r a t e i n Montana. F i t z g e r a l d v . T u r n e r v a l l e y T r a n s p o r t , s u p r a . Aetna c o n t e n d s t h a t i n t h e a b s e n c e of such p e r m i t s , Turner V a l l e y , S t . L o u i s , and C o l l i c o t t w e r e engaged i n " i l l i c i t o r p r o h i b i t e d t r a d e o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n " , and conseq u e n t l y , c o v e r a g e under t h e p o l i c y w a s suspended. ~ i t z g e r a l dr e l i e s upon T r a v e l e r s Mut. C a s u a l t y Co. v . Rector, ( 8 t h C i r . 1 9 4 3 ) , 138 F.2d 3 9 6 , t o c o n c l u d e t h a t T u r n e r V a l l e y ' s t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i n t o Montana w i t h o u t I . C . C . and Montana p e r m i t s d o e s n o t c o n s t i t u t e " i l l i c i t o r prohibited trade o r transportation". I n R e c t o r p l a i n t i f f ' s d e c e a s e d was k i l l e d i n a n a u t o mobile-truck c o l l i s i o n i n Louisiana. Ford B r o t h e r s Van & S t o r a g e Company (Ford C o . ) , a motor c a r r i e r o u t of Omaha, Nebraska, owned and o p e r a t e d t h e t r u c k . The p l a i n t i f f o b t a i n e d judgment a g a i n s t Ford Co. f o r $10,000.00. When e x e c u t i o n on t h e judgment was r e t u r n e d u n s a t i s f i e d , s h e b r o u g h t s u i t a g a i n s t T r a v e l e r s Mutual C a s u a l t y Co., Ford CO.'S insurer. T r a v e l e r s d e f e n d e d t h e s u i t on two b a s e s : (1) t h a t under T r a v e l e r s ' t e r r i t o r i a l r e s t r i c t i o n s i n Ford C o . ' s p o l i c y , t h e t r u c k was n o t c o v e r e d w h i l e b e i n g o p e r a t e d i n L o u i s i a n a ; and ( 2 ) t h a t a t t h e t i m e o f t h e c o l l i s i o n t h e t r u c k was b e i n g o p e r a t e d i n a n " i l l i c i t t r a d e o r p r o h i b i t e d t r a d e o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n " b e c a u s e Ford Co. d i d n o t have a n I.C.C. l i c e n s e t o o p e r a t e i n Louisiana, t h u s excluding it from c o v e r a g e under t h e t e r m s of t h e p o l i c y . The c o u r t i n R e c t o r r e s o l v e d t h e f i r s t i s s u e i n f a v o r of t h e p l a i n t i f f . A s t o whether Ford Co. was engaged i n i l l i c i t o r prohibited trade or transportation, the court h e l d t h a t t h a t i s s u e was n o t p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h e c o u r t . It d i d , however, s a y t h a t i f i t had been p r o p e r l y p r e s e n t e d , i t d i d n o t f e e l t h a t Ford C o . ' s f a i l u r e t o have a n 1 . C . C . p e r i n i t t o o p e r a t e i n L o u i s i a n a a t t h e t i m e of t h e a c c i d e n t was s u f f i c i e n t t o f i n d t h a t Ford C o . ' s o p e r a t i o n of t h e t r u c k i n L o u i s i a n a was " i l l i c i t o r p r o h i b i t e d " within the meaning o f t h e p o l i c y i n s u i t . W e a g r e e w i t h t h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h e R e c t o r c o u r t . The t e r r i t o r i a l p r o v i s i o n of t h i s p o l i c y s p e c i f i c a l l y makes t h e p o l i c y a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e u s e o r o p e r a t i o n of c o v e r e d a u t o m o b i l e s w i t h i n Canada o r t h e United S t a t e s . V a l l e y ' s f a i l u r e t o have a n I . C . C . W e hold t h a t Turner o r Montana p e r m i t f o r t r a n s p o r t i n g goods i n t o and t h r o u g h Montana d o e s n o t c o n s t i t u t e " i l l i c i t o r prohibited trade o r transportation" within the meaning of t h i s p o l i c y under s u c h c i r c u m s t a n c e s . The o n l y o t h e r r e m a i n i n g i s s u e r e l a t e s t o A e t n a ' s p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l . Plaintiff's complaint i n t h i s cause s t a t e d t h r e e counts: Count I t o r e c o v e r t h e amount o f t h e judgment awarded h e r i n F e d e r a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e wrongful d e a t h of h e r husband; Count I1 f o r p u n i t i v e damages, a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s f o r A e t n a ' s a l l e g e d m a l i c i o u s , o p p r e s s i v e and f r a u d u l e n t misconduct and l a c k of good f a i t h ; and Count I11 f o r compensatory damages f o r m e n t a l d i s t r e s s a l l e g e d l y c a u s e d p l a i n t i f f by A e t n a ' s conduct. On November 1 8 , 1975, Aetna moved t o s t r i k e t h e second and t h i r d c o u n t s of p l a i n t i f f ' s c o m p l a i n t . On J u l y 1 2 , 1976, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d A e t n a ' s motion t o s t r i k e . Aetna now s e e k s r e v i e w o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e n i a l by means o f a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l . An o r d e r d e n y i n g a motion t o s t r i k e i s n o t a n a p p e a l a b l e order. Rule 1, I4.R.Agp.Civ.P. tory i n character. Such a n o r d e r i s i n t e r l o c u - I t i s r e v i e w a b l e on a p p e a l from a f i n a l judgment. Rule 2 , M.R.App.Civ.P. To p e r m i t r e v i e w of s u c h a n o r d e r p r i o r t o f i n a l judgment t h r o u g h t h e d e v i c e of supervisory control o r other extraordinary w r i t i s t o accomplish i n d i r e c t l y t h a t which c a n n o t b e done d i r e c t l y . See State ex rel. Kosena v. District Court, (1977), , Mont. 560 P.2d 522, 34 St.Rep. 87. Accordingly, we decline to review the District Court's denial of defendant's motion to strike at this time as the issue is not properly before us. The District Court's order denying defendant summary judgment and granting plaintiff partial summary judgment is affirmed. Defendant's petition for a writ of supervisory control is denied. ?A& J f% \ 4 Chief ~ustice We Concur: Judge, sitting with the Court.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.