Cooper v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

CourtDistrict Court, D. Montana
DecidedJanuary 29, 2024
Docket2:23-cv-00070
StatusUnknown

This text of Cooper v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Cooper v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Montana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cooper v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, (D. Mont. 2024).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BUTTE DIVISION

SANDI S. COOPER, Plaintiff, CV 23-70-BU-JTJ

VS. MEMORANDUM STATE FARM MUTUAL AND ORDER AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Sandi S. Cooper (Cooper) has brought this third-party bad faith action against Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) asserting claims for declaratory relief, violations of Montana’s Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA), and common law bad faith. Presently before the Court is State Farm’s Motion to Dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). State Farm requests that the Court dismiss Cooper’s claims for declaratory relief and Cooper’s claim common law bad faith. Cooper opposes the motion. The Court conducted a hearing on the motion on December 13, 2023. The Court gave the parties an opportunity to submit supplemental briefs following the

hearing that addressed whether Cooper’s common law bad faith claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The parties have submitted their supplemental briefs. The Court is prepared to rule. BACKGROUND Cooper was riding her bicycle in Bozeman, Montana on April 2, 2019, when she was struck by an SUV. The driver of the SUV, Jessica Inabnit (Inabnit), was insured by State Farm. The collision occurred on Virginia Way. Inabnit was traveling southbound on Virginia Way. Inabnit crossed the center line into the northbound lane and parked along side the curb near her mailbox facing south. Cooper was riding her bicycle northbound on Virginia Way. Cooper saw Inabnit cross the center line and park near her mailbox. Cooper began steering her bicycle to the center of the roadway to avoid hitting Inabnit’s parked SUV. Cooper alleges that as she approached Inabnit’s SUV, Inabnit turned the wheel of her SUV to the right and drove forward so Inabnit could get closer to her mailbox. Cooper alleges that the front passenger tire of Inabnit’s car collided with her bicycle causing her to make contact with the passenger side Inabnit’s vehicle and fall to the ground. Cooper alleges that she suffered injures to her head, hand and face.

-2-

State Farm interviewed Inabnit on May 3, 2019, regarding the accident. Inabnit admitted: that she had illegally crossed the center line and parked on the

wrong side of the road near the curb; that she did not see Cooper prior to the collision; and that she was looking down at the time of the collision. (Doc. 4 at q 18). Cooper sent State Farm a letter on June 7, 2019, requesting that State Farm reimburse her for the medical expenses that she had incurred as a result of the collision. (Doc. 4 at ] 21). State Farm responded to Cooper’s letter on July 12,2019. (Doc. 4 at § 22). State Farm rejected Cooper’s demand for payment of her medical expenses. State Farm stated that it was not required to pay Cooper’s medical expenses because Inabnit’s liability was not reasonably clear. Jd. State Farm interviewed Cooper on July 30, 2019, regarding the accident. (Doc. 4 at 23). State Farm refused to pay Cooper’s medical expenses following the interview on grounds Inabnit’s liability was not reasonably clear. (Doc. 4 at { 24). Cooper filed a negligence lawsuit against Inabnit on August 29, 2019, in the Montana Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County. Cooper alleged that Inabnit was negligent per se given that Inabnit had violated Montana traffic laws

-3-

by crossing the centerline and parking her SUV facing south in the northbound lane. Cooper sent State Farm a letter on September 30, 2019, demanding that State Farm reimburse her medical expenses. (Doc. 4 at 1 26). State Farm did not reimburse Cooper for her medical expenses. (Doc. 4 at J 29). Cooper filed a motion for partial summary judgment in the state court action

on October 18, 2021, seeking summary judgment on liability, and reserving for trial the issue of damages. The state court issued its decision on June 21, 2022. (Doc. 9-1). The state court granted Cooper’s motion for summary judgment in part, and denied Cooper’s motion in part. (Doc. 9-1 at 9). The Court found that Inabnit

was negligent per se for violating Montana traffic laws. The state court found, however, that summary judgment on liability was not appropriate given that issues of fact existed with respect to Cooper’s comparative negligence, and issues of fact existed with respect to the amount of injuries caused by Inabnit’s negligence. (Doc. 9-1 at 8). State Farm paid its policy limits to Cooper on or about December 30, 2022. (Doc. 4 at | 30). Cooper moved to dismiss her lawsuit against Inabnit. The state

court dismissed Cooper’s lawsuit on January 3, 2023. (Doc. 9-2).

-4-

Cooper filed the present bad faith lawsuit on September 6, 2023, in Montana Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County. (Doc. 4). State Farm removed the case here on October 6, 2023, invoking this Court’s diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1). DISCUSSION A. Claims for Declaratory Relief Count I of Cooper’s Complaint asserts two claims for declaratory relief under Montana’s Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, Mont. Code Ann. §§ 27-8- 101 et.seq. First, Cooper seeks an order declaring that State Farm violated Sections 6 and 13 of the UTPA and the Montana Supreme Court’s decision in Ridley v. Guaranty Nat'l Ins. Co., 951 P.2d 987 (Mont. 1997), when State Farm failed to advance pay her medical expenses beginning on May 3, 2019. (Doc. 4 at Jf 35, 39). Cooper argues that such a declaration is appropriate because Inabnit’s liability for her medical expenses was reasonably clear on May 3, 2019. Jd. Second, Cooper seeks an order declaring that she is entitled to recover her attorney’s fees under Mont. Code Ann. § 27-8-313 if the Court declares that State Farm has violated any section of the UTPA. (Doc. 4 at Jf 36, 38-39). Each claim for declaratory relief will be addressed in turn.

-5-

a. Declaration that State Farm Violated Sections 6 and 13 of the UTPA Cooper’s first claim for declaratory relief seeks a retrospective declaration that State Farm violated Sections 6 and 13 of the UTPA and its obligations under Ridley when State Farm failed to advance pay her medical expenses on May 3, 2019. Cooper seeks a declaration that State Farm violated the UTPA although the UTPA only provides relief in the form of actual damages. Mont. Code Ann. § 33- 18-242(1). This Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have held that the UTPA neither creates a right of action for declaratory relief, nor does it allow declaratory relief. See e.g., Byorth v. USAA Casualty Ins. Co., 2019 WL 6715970, *2-4 (D. Mont. Dec. 10, 2019); Moe v. GEICO Indemnity Co., 2020 WL 3396872, *4 (D. Mont. June 19, 2020); Woodman v. Standard Ins. Co., 2021 WL 927373, *2 (D. Mont. March 11, 2021); Garner v. USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 2019 WL 3306135, *5 (D. Mont. July 23, 2019); Bateman v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 423 Fed. Appx. 763, 766 (9th Cir. 2011). Cooper argues that the Montana Supreme Court’s decision in Marshall v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois, 413 P.3d 828 (Mont. 2018) makes declaratory relief an available remedy for a violation of the UTPA. Cooper’s reliance on Marshall is

-6-

misplaced. The Montana Supreme Court’s decision in Marshall did not directly address whether the UTPA permits declaratory relief. See Byorth, 2019 WL 6715970, at *4-5; Moe, 2020 WL 3396872, at *4. The Montana Supreme Court limited its decision to the question of whether a third-party insured’s declaratory judgment claim alleging that an insurer was out of compliance with settlement practices required by the UTPA presented a justiciable controversy. Byorth, 2019 WL 6715970, at *4; Marshall at { 14.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lenora Bateman v. Federal Insurance Company
423 F. App'x 763 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Ridley v. Guaranty National Insurance
951 P.2d 987 (Montana Supreme Court, 1997)
Brewington v. Employers Fire Insurance
1999 MT 312 (Montana Supreme Court, 1999)
Trustees of Indiana University v. Buxbaum
2003 MT 97 (Montana Supreme Court, 2003)
Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc. v. Crest Group, Inc.
499 F.3d 1048 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
Marshall v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill.
2018 MT 45 (Montana Supreme Court, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Cooper v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooper-v-state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-company-mtd-2024.