Victory Insurance v. Montana State Fund, 344 P.3d 977

Victory Insurance (started 2007) and Defendants (Montana State Fund, Liberty Northwest, Payne Financial, Western States) compete in Montana workers’ compensation insurance market.
Victory alleged Defendants’ agents made derogatory statements to prospective customers to deter them from buying from Victory, harming Victory’s growth.
Victory sued asserting violations of the Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA) and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; it later dropped its contract-interference claim.
The District Court dismissed Victory’s UTPA claim (holding no private right for one insurer against another) and left the interference claim pending.
Defendants moved for summary judgment on the interference claim, arguing Victory had no proof of actual, quantifiable damages; they submitted detailed transactional and testimonial evidence from the identified prospective customers.
The District Court granted summary judgment for Defendants, finding Victory failed to produce admissible evidence of actual economic loss; the Montana Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the District Court erred in dismissing Victory’s UTPA claim	Victory contends a common-law UTPA action (or relief under § 33-18-302) is available for disparaging statements among insurers	Defendants argued UTPA does not create a private cause of action between insurers and the District Court correctly dismissed the UTPA claim	Court: No need to decide availability of a common-law UTPA claim because Victory’s failure to prove damages is dispositive; affirmed summary judgment on other grounds
Whether the District Court erred in granting summary judgment on intentional interference with prospective economic advantage	Victory argued Defendants’ derogatory statements injured its reputation and that damages may be inferred or proven at trial (pointing to an expert disclosure)	Defendants produced customer testimony and transaction records showing customers declined Victory for independent, non-defamatory reasons or that Victory actually gained business; thus Victory had no quantifiable economic loss	Court: Intentional-interference requires proof of actual, quantifiable economic damages; Victory failed to produce admissible evidence of such damages (expert disclosure insufficient); summary judgment affirmed

Maloney v. Home & Inv. Ctr., 298 Mont. 213, 994 P.2d 1124 (2000) (sets forth four elements of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage)
Mut. of Enumclaw Ins. Co. v. Gregg Roofing, Inc., 315 P.3d 1143 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013) (businesses seeking reputational damages must prove quantifiable economic harm)
Lenz Constr. Co. v. Cameron, 207 Mont. 506, 674 P.2d 1101 (1984) (damages must be established by substantial evidence, not speculation)
Cremer v. Cremer Rodeo Land, 192 Mont. 208, 627 P.2d 1199 (1981) (recovery allowed where evidence affords a reasonable basis for quantifying damages)
Malpeli v. State, 366 Mont. 69, 285 P.3d 509 (2012) (opposing party must set out specific facts by affidavit or other Rule 56 means to defeat summary judgment)