Brilz v. Metropolitan General Insurance
2012 MT 184
| Mont. | 2012Background
- Brilz was injured in an auto collision in Missoula (Aug. 14, 1998) insured by Metropolitan for Kidder’s policy ($25,000 per person).
- Brilz submitted a claim to Metropolitan and accepted a $25,000 settlement on Feb. 2, 2001.
- On Feb. 7, 2002 Brilz sued Metropolitan in Montana federal court over Metropolitan’s handling of her claim for benefits.
- The federal court removed the case to federal court and granted summary judgment, ruling Brilz had no common-law bad-faith claim and that statutory UTPA claim was time-barred.
- Brilz then filed a state-court declaratory-judgment action in 2008 seeking permission to pursue a common-law bad-faith claim despite the statute of limitations; district court dismissed, and Brilz appeals.
- The Montana Supreme Court held that claim preclusion bars Brilz’s second action and affirmed the district court’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 27-2-407, MCA saving statute applies. | Brilz argues the first action’s improper dismissal allows a renewed claim. | Metropolitan contends the first federal action ended on the merits, depriving revival. | Rule: claim preclusion bars renewal; saving statute does not save. |
| Whether equitable tolling applies to toll the limitations period. | Brilz asserts Lozeau criteria support tolling. | Metropolitan argues tolling was not shown and notice failed. | Equitable tolling not available here given preclusion doctrine already controls. |
| Whether claim preclusion bars Brilz’s common-law bad-faith claim. | Brilz contends the common-law claim could be pursued separately. | Metropolitan argues prior federal judgment on the merits bars relitigation. | Yes. Final federal judgment on the merits and the related claims preclude the second action. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. Oregon Short Line R.R. Co., 38 Mont. 177, 99 P. 298 (1909) (early view of saving statute and pleading flexibility under § 27-2-407, MCA)
- Lane v. Fourth Jud. Dist. Ct., 316 Mont. 55, 68 P.3d 819 (2003 MT) (distinguishes issue preclusion; relevance to pleading standards)
- Lozeau v. GEICO Indem. Co., 2009 MT 136, 350 Mont. 320, 207 P.3d 316 (2009 MT) ( outlines equitable tolling requirements and notice)
- Baltrusch v. Baltrusch, 2006 MT 51, 331 Mont. 281, 130 P.3d 1267 (2006 MT) (describes preclusion policy and finality of judgments)
- Semtek Int’l v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (2001) (choice of law for preclusion in diversity cases; use of state law for claim preclusion)
- Wiser v. Mont. Bd. of Dentistry, 2011 MT 56, 360 Mont. 1, 251 P.3d 675 (2011 MT) (applies claim preclusion to prevent relitigation)
- McDaniel v. State, 2009 MT 159, 350 Mont. 422, 208 P.3d 817 (2009 MT) (treatment of preclusion elements in Montana)
- Mills v. Lincoln County, 262 Mont. 283, 864 P.2d 1265 (1993) (final judgment on merits for preclusion)