LaMere v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 2011 MT 272

Lexi LaMere, daughter of Virgil Henderson, was seriously injured in a 2001 accident caused by an uninsured motorist; she was insured under two Farmers policies providing UM and UIM but no medical payments.
In 2001 Lexi settled her UM claim against Farmers for $25,000 under Policy #58 in exchange for a full release; at that time anti-stacking provisions governed coverage.
In 2006 Lexi and Henderson sued Farmers seeking to stack UM/UIM/medical payment coverages under Henderson’s second policy; Farmers paid an additional $25,000 in December 2006 under Policy #59.
The district court granted Farmers’ partial summary judgment on stacking and standing; the court later held no standing to claim medical payments, leaving only unjust enrichment.
Lexi and Henderson sought class certification for unjust enrichment and disgorgement of premiums; the district court denied certification, finding lack of standing and proper class membership.
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, addressing retroactivity under Hardy and Dempsey, and held no valid stacking, no medical-pay standing, and no appropriate class certification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court err in dismissing stacking claims?	Lexi and Henderson argue stacking is permissible under Hardy retroactively.	Farmers contends anti-stacking statute and policy terms foreclose stacking; Dempsey retroactivity applies.	Staking claims barred; Hardy retroactivity not applied to settled claims.
Did Lexi and Henderson have standing to assert medical pay coverage claims?	Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to medical payments or to represent others with medical pay claims.	They never paid for medical pay coverage; no injury, hence no standing.	No standing to pursue medical pay claims personally or as class representatives.
Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying class certification for unjust enrichment and disgorgement?	A class of insureds who were unlawfully not allowed to stack should be certified.	Named plaintiffs lack standing and class description is improper; no common injury.	No abuse; plaintiffs lacked standing to represent the defined class.
Does Dempsey retroactivity apply to Hardy, given pre-final settlement?	Hardy should apply retroactively to unsettled claims; Lexi’s settlement was open to stacking claims.	Dempsey bars retroactive application to settled claims, preserving finality.	Hardy not retroactive to Lexi’s settled claim under Dempsey; retroactivity limited by finality rules.

Hardy v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 315 Mont. 107, 67 P.3d 892 (2003 MT 85) (public policy on stacking; precludes charging premiums for non-existent coverage)
Dempsey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 325 Mont. 207, 104 P.3d 483 (2004 MT 391) (retroactivity limited to cases not final; finality governs retroactive application)
Schmill v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp., 114 P.3d 204 (2005 MT 144) (retroactivity and finality considerations subsequent to Hardy)
Stavenjord v. Mont. State Fund, 146 P.3d 724 (2006 MT 257) (finality and retroactivity considerations in Montana cases)
Mont. Trout Unlimited v. Beaverhead Water Co., 361 Mont. 77, 255 P.3d 179 (2011 MT 151) (standing and class-action considerations in context of Montana law)
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 116 S. Ct. 2174 (1996) (standing requirement: plaintiffs must allege and show personal injury)