Ternes v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 257 P.3d 352

Ternes appeals district court orders granting separate summary judgments for State Farm and the Eberhards; the Supreme Court affirms.
The dispute involves a Missoula residence previously owned by the Eberhards and insured by State Farm.
A 2006 State Farm handling of a water-damage claim (ultimately linked to a C.L.U.E. report) is central.
The Giardinos terminated a Buy-Sell agreement to purchase the residence in June 2008, with financing, insurance, and other contingencies in play.
Ternes later asserted damages from the alleged misconduct related to the C.L.U.E. report and related actions; the district court granted summary judgments for defendants.
The court addressed issues of pretrial procedure, causation of the termination, damages, and the applicability of the Montana Consumer Protection Act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in not indefinitely staying proceedings.	Ternes contends stay was warranted after joining Eberhards.	Court reasonably managed complex pretrial proceedings.	No abuse of discretion; affirmed.
Whether there were genuine facts showing Giardinos unilaterally terminated for reasons other than financing.	C.L.U.E. report influenced termination.	Financing contingency caused termination; evidence shows no influence by C.L.U.E.	No genuine issue of material fact; affirmed.
Whether there were genuine facts supporting damages from State Farm or Eberhards’ conduct.	Damages flowed from C.L.U.E. report and related conduct.	No evidence of damages causally linked to conduct.	Damages not proven; affirmed.
Whether Ternes was a consumer under the Montana MCPA to trigger its application.	MCPA may apply if consumer status shown.	No ascertainable damages shown; duty not established.	Ruling on MCPA not necessary given lack of damages.

Busta v. Columbus Hosp., 276 Mont. 342, 916 P.2d 122 (1996) (foreseeability and duty considerations in negligence contexts)
Hatch v. State Dept. of Highways, 269 Mont. 188, 887 P.2d 729 (1994) (existence of a duty is a question of law; without duty no negligence claim)
Thornton v. Songstad, 263 Mont. 390, 868 P.2d 633 (1994) (hearsay exclusions and summary judgment evidentiary standards)
McKenzie v. Scheeler, 285 Mont. 500, 949 P.2d 1168 (1997) (counsel arguments devoid of evidentiary support fail on summary judgment)
Peterson v. Eichhorn, 344 Mont. 540, 189 P.3d 615 (2008) (initial burden on movant to show absence of genuine issues of material fact)