STATE EX REL BOHRER v DISTRICT COU

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NO. 13563 I N THE SUPREME C U T O T E STATE O MONTANA OR F H F 1976 STATE O MONTANA, on t h e r e l a t i o n F of S Y O R M. BOHRER, MILLER M T A EMU UU L FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a c o r p o r a t i o n ; and HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, a c o r p o r a t i o n , Relators, THE DISTRICT COURT O THE SECOND JUDICIAL F DISTRICT O T E STATE O MONTANA, I N AND F H F F R THE COUNTY O SILVER BOW; and THE HON. O F A N L OLSEN, Judge t h e r e o f , R OD ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel of Record: For R e l a t o r s : Poore, McKenzie, Roth, Robischon & Robinson, B u t t e , Montana Urban L. Roth argued, B u t t e , Montana For Respondents: G a r l i n g t o n , Lohn and Robinson, Missoula, Montana Gary L. Graham argued, Missoula, Montana Henningsen, P u r c e l l and Genzberger, B u t t e , Montana James E. P u r c e l l argued, B u t t e , Montana C o r e t t e , Smith and Dean, B u t t e , Montana Schulz, David and Warren, D i l l o n , Montana Swanberg, Koby, Swanberg and Matteucci, Great F a l l s , Montana Raymond F. Koby Jr. argued, Great F a l l s , Montana Submitted: October 27, 1976 Decided: N O V Filed: ii"\i , ,Yib I 1.7 1976 Chief J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Mr. This i s a n o r i g i n a l proceeding wherein r e l a t o r s seek an appropriate w r i t t o overturn t h e respondent c o u r t ' s order denying t h e i r motion t o withdraw a s p a r t i e s p l a i n t i f f i n a n a c t i o n f i l e d i n respondent c o u r t e n t i t l e d : "Seymour M. Bohrer; Miller Mutual F i r e I n s u r a n c e Company, a c o r p o r a t i o n ; and Home I n s u r a n c e Company, a c o r p o r a t i o n , P l a i n t i f f s , v s . S t e v e C l a r k , d/b/a S t e v e C l a r k C o n s t r u c t i o n ; S h a e f e r Plumbing Inc.; L e v i t t C o n s t r u c t i o n Systems, I n c . , & Sheet Metal, a c o r p o r a t i o n ; The M a j e s t i c Company, a c o r p o r a t i o n , and Morgan D r i v e Away, a c o r p o r a t i o n , Defendants." t a k e n under advisement. h e a r i n g was i s s u e d . Counsel was h e a r d ex p a r t e and t h e matter Thereafter an order f o r an adversary Such h e a r i n g was h e l d , b r i e f s i n o p p o s i t i o n f i l e d , a l l c o u n s e l h e a r d i n o r a l argument, and t h e m a t t e r submitted f o r decision. I t a p p e a r s t h a t Bohrer f i l e d t h e above mentioned a c t i o n i n h i s own name f o r l o s s s u s t a i n e d i n t h e amount o f $61,639.67 a g a i n s t t h e defendants. On J u l y 23, 1975, The M a j e s t i c Company moved t o compel Bohrer t o j o i n as n e c e s s a r y p a r t i e s any i n s u r a n c e company who was p a r t i a l l y o r e n t i r e l y s u b r o g a t e d t o @ i s loss. M i l l e r Mutual F i r e I n s u r a n c e Company and Home I n s u r a n c e Company had p a i d $51,693 of t h i s l o s s , and p u r s u a n t t o t h e motion a second amended c o m p l a i n t was f i l e d i n c l u d i n g t h e s e i n s u r e r s as p l a i n t i f f s . Thereafter these p l a i n t i f f insurers, r e l a t o r s h e r e , moved t o withdraw a s p a r t i e s p l a i n t i f f , a t which t i m e t h e c a s e had n o t been s e t f o r a p r e t r i a l h e a r i n g nor j u r y t r i a l . On September 23, 1976, t h e r e s p o n d e n t d i s t r i c t judge i s s u e d a n o r d e r denying t h e motion t o withdraw. A f f i d a v i t s had been f i l e d a l o n g w i t h t h i s motion and i n which t h e i n s u r e r s had r a t i f i e d t h e a c t i o n of Bohrer and a g r e e d t o be bound by t h e outcome o f s u c h litigation. The p a r t i e s t o t h i s o r i g i n a l p r o c e e d i n g a l l a g r e e t h a t t h e language o f S t a t e e x r e l . Nawd's T.V. Inc. v. D i s t r i c t Court, Mont. , and A p p l i a n c e , 543 P.2d 1336, 32 S t . Rep. 1 2 2 2 ( 1 9 7 5 ) , i s d e t e r m i n a t i v e t h a t a p a r t i a l l y s u b r o g a t e d i n s u r e r c a n e l e c t t o be bound by r a t i f i c a t i o n , j o i n d e r , o r substitution. F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e e l e c t i o n i s h i s a l o n e t o make and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s g i v e n no d i s c r e t i o n i n d e c i d i n g whether compliance w i t h Rule 1 7 , M.R.Civ.P., w i l l be by j o i n d e r o r ratification. The d e f e n d a n t s i n t h e a c t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a r g u e t h a t r e l a t o r s should n o t p r e v a i l h e r e f o r two r e a s o n s : (1) The motion t o withdraw came t o o l a t e s i n c e t h e i n s u r e r s e l e c t e d t o become p a r t i e s p l a i n t i f f i n t h e second amended c o m p l a i n t , and t h e y a r e bound by t h a t e l e c t i o n . ( 2 ) R e t r o a c t i v e e f f e c t s h o u l d n o t be g i v e n t o t h e Nawd's T.V. ruling. The c r u c i a l language o f Rule 1 7 , M.R.Civ.P. states: " * * * No a c t i o n s h a l l be d i s m i s s e d on t h e ground t h a t i t i s n o t p r o s e c u t e d i n t h e name of t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t u n t i l a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e h a s been a l l o w e d a f t e r o b j e c t i o n f o r r a t i f i c a t i o n of commencement of t h e a c t i o n by, o r j o i n d e r o r s u b s t i t u t i o n o f , t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t ; and s u c h r a t i f i c a t i o n , j o i n d e r , o r s u b s t i t u t i o n s h a l l have t h e s a m e e f f e c t a s i f t h e a c t i o n had been commenced i n t h e name o f the real party i n interest." (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) A s c a n e a s i l y be s e e n , t h e p l a i n i m p o r t o f t h i s l a n g u a g e g i v e s t h e real p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t t h e o p t i o n of binding himself by r a t i f i c a t i o n , j o i n d e r , - s u b s t i t u t i o n . or n o t g r a n t e d by t h e Nawd's T.V. Civ.P., This option w a s d e c i s i o n b u t by Rule 1 7 , M.R. when i t was amended i n 1968. T h i s r u l e d o e s n o t p r o v i d e any l a n g u a g e s t a t i n g t h a t once a r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t h a s chosen one o f t h e t h r e e p o s s i b l e means o f b i n d i n g h i m s e l f t o t h e a c t i o n , he i s b a r r e d from changi n g h i s mind and p r o c e e d i n g i n a n o t h e r manner. A s pointed o u t i n Nawd's T.V. t h i s e l e c t i o n belongs t o t h e real p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t , and t h e o n l y a u t h o r i t y i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s t o make s u r e o n e of t h e t h r e e , r a t i f i c a t i o n , j o i n d e r , o r subs t i t u t i o n , i s adhered t o a f t e r o b j e c t i o n h a s been made under Rule 17. T h i s o p t i o n a s t o which means t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t w i s h e s t o proceed b e l o n g s s o l e l y t o him. W e hold t h a t o r d i n a r i l y he i s e n t i t l e d t o change h i s mind and proceed under any o f t h e t h r e e means, even though he h a s made a p r e v i o u s e l e c t i o n , a s l o n g a s s u c h a c t i o n on h i s p a r t i s prompt and h a s no p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t on any p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n . I n t h i s c a s e t h e p a r t i a l l y s u b r o g a t e d i n s u r e r s had j o i n e d a s p a r t i e s p l a i n t i f f i n t h e second amended c o m p l a i n t , b u t p r i o r t o t h e s c h e d u l i n g of a p r e t r i a l h e a r i n g o r t r i a l . They f i l e d a f f i d a v i t s o f r a t i f i c a t i o n and moved t o withdraw a s p a r t i e s p l a i n tiff. Through s u c h r a t i f i c a t i o n t h e s e i n s u r e r s w e r e bound t o t h e a c t i o n under Rule 1 7 , M.R.Civ.P. The d e f e n d a n t s a r e n o t s u b j e c t e d t o p o s s i b l e d o u b l e j e o p a r d y , and w e p e r c e i v e no p r e j u d i c e t o d e f e n d a n t s due t o r e l a t o r s ' a c t i o n . T h e r e f o r e t h e o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s v a c a t e d . A new o r d e r s h a l l i s s u e g r a n t i n g t h e motion of r e l a t o r s . This opinion s h a l l c o n s t i t u t e a w r i t of supervisory c o n t r 1 f o r t h e P g u i d a n c e of t h e d i s t r i c t c o W e concur: /

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.