Wilkie v. Hartford
2021 MT 221
Mont.2021Background
- Paul Wilkie was struck by Richard Sprout’s truck; Sprout was insured by The Hartford, which began making Ridley medical payments after concluding liability was reasonably clear.
- Wilkie’s counsel requested the insurance policy or the liability limit; The Hartford refused to provide the policy or limits and asked for more information instead.
- Wilkie sued seeking a declaratory judgment that an insurer must disclose policy information to a third‑party claimant when the insured’s liability is reasonably clear (or at least disclose the coverage limits).
- About three weeks after Wilkie filed suit, the Sprouts (the insureds) produced the policy and declarations page to Wilkie; The Hartford and the Sprouts moved to dismiss as moot; the District Court granted dismissal.
- Wilkie invoked the voluntary cessation mootness exception; the Montana Supreme Court held The Hartford failed to show the challenged conduct could not reasonably be expected to recur, reversed dismissal as to The Hartford, affirmed dismissal of the Sprouts, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wilkie’s declaratory claim is moot after production of the policy, or whether the voluntary cessation exception applies | Wilkie: The Hartford has not met the heavy burden to show the conduct cannot reasonably recur; insurers could routinely refuse disclosure, force suit, then produce documents to moot cases | The Hartford: The dispute is moot because the policy was produced; voluntary cessation exception inapplicable to a single instance and plaintiff must show recurrence | Court: Reversed dismissal as to The Hartford — defendant bears burden to show challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to recur and Hartford failed to meet it; remand for further proceedings |
| Whether dismissal of the Sprouts was erroneous | Wilkie did not meaningfully challenge dismissal | Sprouts joined motion to dismiss based on mootness after producing the policy | Court: Affirmed dismissal of the Sprouts |
Key Cases Cited
- Ridley v. Guaranty Nat’l Ins. Co., 951 P.2d 987 (Mont. 1998) (recognized insurer’s obligation to make medical payments before final settlement when liability is reasonably clear)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’l Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2000) (voluntary cessation does not moot a case unless it is absolutely clear the wrongful behavior cannot reasonably be expected to recur)
- Havre Daily News, LLC v. City of Havre, 142 P.3d 864 (Mont. 2006) (single‑instance disclosures generally do not invoke voluntary cessation exception unless plaintiff shows pattern of repeat conduct)
- Heringer v. Barnegat Dev. Grp., LLC, 485 P.3d 731 (Mont. 2021) (defendant carried burden where it provided sworn assurances and consistent explanations that conduct would not recur)
- Montanans Against Assisted Suicide v. Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 347 P.3d 1244 (Mont. 2015) (discussing exceptions to mootness and when adjudication remains appropriate)