STATE EX REL GUAR INS v DISTRIC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 81-346 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 STATE OF MONTANA, ex rel., GUARANTEE INSURANCE COMPANY, Relator, DISTRICT COURT OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT and HON. JOEL G. ROTH, and BOYD MAHAFFEY and NANCY MAHAFFEY, d/b/a MAHAFFEY TRUCKING, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel of Record: For Relator: Smith, Baillie & Walsh, Great Falls, Montana For Respondents: James, Gray & McCafferty, Great Falls, Montana Submitted: Decided : Piled: 9CT 14 1 8 9: . September 17, 1981 &-1 1 4 rh' C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e Court. Mr. T h i s is a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a w r i t o f s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l t o r e v i e w and r e v e r s e a D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r d e n y i n g r e l a t o r ' s o b j e c t i o n s t o t w o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s by p l a i n t i f f and d i r e c t i n g r e l a t o r t o a n s w e r them w i t h i n 30 d a y s . On J a n u a r y 11, 1 9 7 9 , t h e c o m p l a i n t i n t h e u n d e r l y i n g a c t i o n was f i l e d i n t h e ~ i s t r i c t o u r t o f C a s c a d e C o u n t y . C P l a i n t i f f w a s r e l a t o r ' s i n s u r e d whose t r a c t o r and t r a i l e r were damaged i n a n a u t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t . Plaintiffs allege two claims a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t s e e k i n g c o m p e n s a t o r y and p u n i t i v e d a m a g e s f o r a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n s of t h e p o l i c y p r o v i s i o n s and s t a t e i n s u r a n c e s t a t u t e s i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h s e t t l e m e n t of t h e c o l l i s i o n loss. I n the course of p r e t r i a l discovery p l a i n t i f f s served i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s on d e f e n d a n t p u r s u a n t to R u l e 33, M.R.Civ. P. i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s involved i n t h e p r e s e n t c o n t r o v e r s y read as follows: 2: "INTERROGATORY NUMBER - " P l e a s e s t a t e t h e number o f t o t a l l o s s claims w h i c h were s e t t l e d b y y o u r company b e t w e e n J u l y 1, 1 9 7 5 , and J u l y 1, 1 9 7 8 , b y a d i r e c t payment f r o m y o u r company f u n d s o n l y i n t h e amount o f t h e insured v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y less the s a l v a g e p r i c e and d e d u c t i b l e , and w h e r e t h e r e was a d i r e c t payment o f t h e s a l v a g e p r i c e from t h e s a l v a g e p u r c h a s e r to t h e i n s u r e d ; and f o r each such s e t t l e m e n t , p l e a s e state: "(a) The d a t e o f t h e l o s s ; "(b) The d a t e o f t h e payment from y o u r company; " ( c ) The d a t e of t h e payment from t h e s a l v a g e purchaser; "(d) The amount o f t h e payment from y o u r c o m pany funds; " ( e ) The amount o f t h e payment from t h e s a l v a g e purchaser; "( f ) W h e t h e r s e t t l e m e n t s i n t h i s m a t t e r were i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h s t a n d a r d company p r o c e d u r e s or p o l i c y p r o v i s i o n s ; and i f s o , p l e a s e i d e n t i f y a n y and a l l d o c u m e n t a t i o n w h i c h s e t s f o r t h t h i s s t a n d a r d company procedure and/or i d e n t i f y t h e p o l i c y provision involved. " The "INTERROGATORY NUMBER 5: " P l e a s e i d e n t i f y i n a manner s u f f i c i e n t f o r a m o t i o n to p r o d u c e , e a c h and e v e r y w r i t i n g o f w h a t e v e r k i n d and n a t u r e which i n a n y way pert a i n s t o t h e information requested by I n t e r r o g a t o r y Number 2 a b o v e , i n c l u d i n g ( w i t h o u t n e e d o f s e t t i n g f o r t h t h e name o f t h e i n s u r e d i n v o l v e d ) t h e claim number and p o l i c y number.I1 P l a i n t i f f contended i n the District Court t h a t these i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s are d i r e c t l y r e l e v a n t to t h e a l l e g a t i o n s s t a t e d i n t h e p l a i n t i f f s 1 c o m p l a i n t , h a v e n o t b e e n shown i n a n y m a n n e r to b e u n r e a s o n a b l y b u r d e n s o m e or v e x a t i o u s , and a r e t h e o n l y a v e n u e b y which t h e p l a i n t i f f can c o l l e c t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n needed to p r o v e a r e g u l a r c o u r s e o f b u s i n e s s c o n d u c t i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e Montana I n s u r a n c e Code. Defendant contended i n the District Court t h a t t h e s e t w o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s are u n d u l y a n n o y i n g , o p p r e s s i v e , b u r d e n s o m e and e x p e n s i v e ; t h a t t h e y are o u t s i d e t h e scope of p e r m i s s i b l e d i s c o v e r y ; and t h a t t h e y a r e n o t r e a s o n a b l y c a l c u l a t e d t o l e a d t o t h e d i s c o v e r y of a d m i s s i b l e evidence. Defendant f i l e d o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e s e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , r e q u e s t e d a h e a r i n g w h i c h was g r a n t e d , and f o l l o w i n g t h e h e a r i n g t h e 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 a t e d and f i l e d o n May 2 6 , 1981, t h a t t h e information sought w a s d i s c o v e r a b l e information, d e n i e d r e l a t o r ' s o b j e c t i o n s , and a l l o w e d r e l a t o r 30 d a y s i n which t o answer s a i d i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s . On A u g u s t 6 , 1 9 8 1 , r e l a t o r f i l e d i n t h i s C o u r t i t s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a w r i t o f s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l r e q u e s t i n g u s to a c c e p t jurisdiction , review and r e v e r s e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r of May 2 6 , and e n t e r a n o r d e r s u s t a i n i n g r e l a t o r ' s o b j e c t i o n s , o r i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e o r d e r a r e s p o n s e to t h e a p p l i c a t i o n . T h i s Court t h e n o r d e r e d a r e s p o n s e by t h e p l a i n t i f f in the D i s t r i c t C o u r t a c t i o n which h a s now b e e n r e c e i v e d , examined and considered. W now r e f u s e t o a c c e p t j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e p e t i t i o n f o r e w r i t o f s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l on t h e f o l l o w i n g grounds: 1. The a p p l i c a t i o n is u n t i m e l y . 2. Relator h a s n o t e x h a u s t e d h i s a v a i l a b l e r e m e d i e s i n t h e District Court. 3. R e l a t o r h a s a n a d e q u a t e remedy a t law p r e c l u d i n g r e v i e w by e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t . 4. P o l i c y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s move o u r d i s c r e t i o n to r e f u s e jurisdiction. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t 1s o r d e r d e n y i n g r e l a t o r ' s o b j e c t i o n s to t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s and d i r e c t i n g r e l a t o r to a n s w e r t h e same w i t h i n 30 d a y s was i s s u e d on May 2 6 , 1 9 8 1 . The p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l was n o t f i l e d w i t h t h i s C o u r t u n t i l August 61 1981. Thus t h e a p p l i c a t i o n was n o t made u n t i l 40 d a y s a f t e r t h e time f o r a n s w e r i n g i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s had e x p i r e d . As s u c h , t h e 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 is u n t i m e l y and i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r . N e i t h e r has relator exhausted h i s remedies i n t h e District Court. Relator h a s n o t a p p l i e d f o r a p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r u n d e r R u l e 2 6 ( c ) , M.R.Civ.P., l i m i t i n g t h e scope of t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s n o r h a s it a p p l i e d f o r a n o r d e r u n d e r R u l e 3 7 ( a ) ( 4 ) , M.R.Civ.P., assessing c o s t s including a t t o r n e y fees a g a i n s t the losing party should the D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r be r e v e r s e d o n a p p e a l . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s i n h e r e n t d i s c r e t i o n a r y power t o c o n t r o l d i s c o v e r y and t h a t power is b a s e d upon t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s a u t h o r i t y to c o n t r o l trial administration. 6 0 3 P.2d Massaro v. 2 4 9 , 36 S t . R e p , 2102. Dunham ( 1 9 7 9 ) Mont. I C o n t r o l o v e r p r e t r i a l d i s c o v e r y is b e s t e x e r c i s e d b y t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t which is i n a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t h a n t h i s Court t o s u p e r v i s e t h e day t o day o p e r a t i o n s of p r e t r i a l discovery. The r e q u i r e m e n t o f e x h a u s t i o n of r e m e d i e s i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t b e f o r e s e e k i n g i n t e r v e n t i o n by e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t from t h i s C o u r t w i l l p r o m o t e t h i s o b j e c t i v e and supp o r t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s a u t h o r i t y to c o n t r o l d a y b y d a y t r i a l administration. R e l a t o r a l s o h a s a n a d e q u a t e remedy a t law p r e c l u d i n g review by e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t . The t h r u s t o f r e l a t o r ' s c o n t e n - t i o n s is t h a t f o r c i n g it t o a n s w e r t h e two i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s w i l l s u b j e c t them t o g r e a t h a r d s h i p and e x p e n s e . I n t h i s d a y o f com- p u t e r i z e d r e t r i e v a l o f claims r e c o r d s it is h a r d to u n d e r s t a n d t h e hardship involved. The e x p e n s e i n v o l v e d c a n be a s s e s s e d a g a i n s t t h e l o s i n g p a r t y a t t r i a l o r upon a p p e a l . Rule 3 7 ( a ) ( 4 ) , M.R.Civ.P. P o l i c y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a l s o s u p p o r t o u r r e f u s a l to accept j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h i s p e t i t i o n f o r an extraordinary w r i t . We a c k n o w l e d g e K u i p e r v. D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t . (1981) I Mont . , 6 3 2 P.2d 6 9 4 , 38 S t . R e p . 1 2 8 8 , i n which w e a c c e p t e d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w and r e v e r s e a n o r d e r o f t h e ~ i s t r i c t ourt granting a p r o t e c t i v e order a g a i n s t d i s c l o s u r e C o f t r a d e secrets. T h a t p r o c e e d i n g is d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h e p r e s e n t case i n t h a t t h e r e t h e r e m e d i e s b e f o r e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t had been e x h a u s t e d p r i o r to a p p l y i n g to t h i s Court f o r supervisory contol. W e a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t i n o n e case n i n e y e a r s a g o we g r a n t e d a w r i t o f s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l t o r e v i e w and r e v e r s e t h e s c o p e o f a n i n t e r r o g a t o r y p r o p o s e d by p l a i n t i f f i n t h e District Court. Miller ( 1 9 7 2 ) S t a t e ex rel. Bankers L i f e 1 6 0 Mont. 2 5 6 , 5 0 2 P.2d 27. & C a s u a l t y Co. v . I f t h i s C o u r t were t o c o n t i n u e a p o l i c y of i n t e r j e c t i n g i t s e l f i n t o an i n t e r l o c u t o r y r e v i e w o f r u l i n g s o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s o f t h i s s t a t e conc e r n i n g i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s and o b j e c t i o n s t h e r e t o , w e would n o t o n l y make it d i f f i c u l t f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t to c o n t r o l d a y t o d a y t r i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n b u t we would o p e n a P a n d o r a t s Box o f abuses. A l l t h a t a f i n a n c i a l l y s u p e r i o r i n s u r a n c e company would h a v e t o do t o d e l a y i n t e r m i n a b l y o r d e f e a t a p l a i n t i f f ' s a c t i o n f o r d a m a g e s , no matter how m e r i t o r i o u s , would be t o f i l e s u c c e s s i v e a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r r e v i e w of e v e r y r u l i n g o f t h e District Court concerning i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , depositions, r e q u e s t s f o r a d m i s s i o n s , and o t h e r p r e t r i a l d i s c o v e r y t h e r e b y r e n d e r i n g i t u n l i k e l y t h a t p l a i n t i f f c o u l d e v e r g e t to t r i a l w i t h i n a reaso- nable t i m e . A t t h e same t i m e t h i s would d e f e a t o n e p u r p o s e and g o a l o f t h e Montana R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e - - a speedy, inex- p e n s i v e , and j u s t method o f d i s c o v e r i n g t h e f a c t s upon which e a c h p a r t y ' s r i g h t of a c t i o n depends. I t m i g h t also l i t e r a l l y b u r y t h i s Court i n a paper b l i z z a r d of a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r superv i s o r y c o n t r o l to r e v i e w r u l i n g s of t h e District Court on p r e t r i a l discovery. Our h o l d i n g h e r e is c o n s i s t e n t w i t h f e d e r a l c o u r t d e c i s i o n s on t h e s u b j e c t . The p o l i c y o f t h e f e d e r a l a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s t o r e f use i n t e r l o c u t o r y review of p r e t r i a l d i s c o v e r y o r d e r s and t h e r e a s o n s t h e r e f o r were e x p r e s s e d by J u d g e A l d i s e r t i n t h i s manner: " E v e r y i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r i n v o l v e s , to some d e g r e e , a p o t e n t i a l loss. That r i s k , however, m u s t be b a l a n c e d a g a i n s t t h e need f o r e f f i c i e n t f e d e r a l j u d i c i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n as e v i d e n c e d b y t h e Congressional p r o h i b i t i o n of piecemeal appellate litigation. To a c c e p t t h e a p p e l l a n t t s v i e w is to i n v i t e t h e i n u n d a t i o n o f a p p e l l a t e d o c k e t s w i t h what have h e r e t o f o r e been regarded a s n o n a p p e a l a b l e m a t t e r s . I t would c o n s t i t u t e t h e c o u r t s o f a p p e a l s as s e c o n d - s t a g e m o t i o n c o u r t s reviewing p r e t r i a l a p p l i c a t i o n s of a l l n o n - p a r t y w i t n e s s e s a1 l e g i n g some damage b e c a u s e of the litigation. "To a c c e p t t h e a p p e l l a n t t s v i e w is a l s o t o i n v i t e a geometrical increase i n the already u n a c c e p t a b l e d e l a y between t h e d a t e of f i l i n g and t r i a l i n t h e m e t r o p o l i t a n d i s t r i c t c o u r t s . The p r e s e n t case, f i l e d o v e r t h r e e y e a r s ago and now h e l d i n a b e y a n c e p e n d i n g t h e o u t c o m e o f t h i s a p p e a l , is a s p l e n d i d e x a m p l e o f t h e Homeric p r o p o r t i o n s t h a t such l i t i g a t i o n c a n assume. Our o v e r b u r d e n e d c o u r t s h a v e l i t t l e t i m e o r a p p e t i t e f o r such p r o t r a c t i o n s . " B o r d e n Company v . S y l k ( 3 r d C i r . 1 9 6 9 ) r 410 F.2d 8 4 3 . For t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s we d e c l i n e j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h i s c a u s e and d i s m i s s t h e p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l . Chief ~ u s t i c e \
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.
