Fitzgerald v. Aetna Insurance

No. 13822
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1978

DONNA S. FITZGERALD, Individually and as
Administratrix of the Estate of RONALD E.
FITZGERALD, Deceased,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, MARKEL INSURANCE
COMPANY and CANADIAN SURETY COl4PANY,
Defendants and Appellants.

Appeal from: District Court of the Eiqhth Judicial District,
Honorable William Coder, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellants:

Church, Harris, Johnson and Williams, Great Falls,
Xontana
Cresap S. PlcCracken argued, Great Falls, Montana
For Respondent:
Marra, Wenz and Iwen, Great Falls, Montana
Joseph Flarra argued, Great Palls, Montana
Dola Wilson, Great Falls, Montana

Submitted: January 18, 1978
Mr. Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of
t h e Court.

Aetna I n s u r a n c e Company a p p e a l s from an o r d e r of t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t , E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Cascade County,

d e n y i n g i t s motion f o r summary judgment and g r a n t i n g p a r t i a l

summary judgment i n f a v o r o f t h e p l a i n t i f f F i t z g e r a l d .

I n December 1973, Donna F i t z g e r a l d f i l e d s u i t i n S t a t e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t a g a i n s t Turner V a l l e y T r a n s p o r t ( T u r n e r
V a l l e y ) , and Emmanuel S t . L o u i s ( S t . L o u i s ) , b o t h motor

c a r r i e r s from Edmonton, A l b e r t a , Canada, and Rudolph C o l l i c o t t ,

a t r u c k d r i v e r , f o r a l l e g e d l y c a u s i n g t h e wrongful d e a t h of

h e r husband, Ronald E. F i t z g e r a l d . F i t z g e r a l d was k i l l e d
November 2 3 , 1973, i n a c o l l i s i o n n e a r Lewistown, Montana,

between h i s t r u c k and a t r a c t o r - t r a i l e r u n i t d r i v e n by

Collicott. C o l l i c o t t was t r a n s p o r t i n g a l o a d of p i p e f o r

Turner V a l l e y from Edmonton, A l b e r t a , t o G i l l e t t e , Wyoming.

T u r n e r V a l l e y owned t h e t r a i l e r i n v o l v e d i n t h e c o l l i s i o n ,

b u t had h i r e d b o t h t h e t r a c t o r and t h e d r i v e r C o l l i c o t t from

S t . Louis.

The d e f e n d a n t s Turner V a l l e y , S t . L o u i s , and C o l l i c o t t

removed t h e wrongful d e a t h s u i t t o F e d e r a l C o u r t . A nonjury

t r i a l t h e r e r e s u l t e d i n a judgment a g a i n s t Turner V a l l e y and
C o l l i c o t t f o r $190,739.00, p l u s c o s t s , and i n a f i n d i n g t h a t

S t . L o u i s w a s n o t bound t o indemnify Turner V a l l e y . No

a p p e a l w a s t a k e n from t h i s judgment.
At t h e t i m e of t h e accident Turner V a l l e y was i n s u r e d

by Markel I n s u r a n c e Company of Canada (Markel) under a
primary v e h i c l e p o l i c y c o v e r i n g wholly owned and s c h e d u l e d
v e h i c l e s , and by Aetna I n s u r a n c e Company (Aetna) under a

c o m p o s i t e m e r c a n t i l e p o l i c y a f f o r d i n g a l i m i t e d form of
automobile l i a b i l i t y coverage. Aetna defended Turner V a l l e y

i n t h e F e d e r a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t t r i a l a f t e r Markel dropped i t s
d e f e n s e of Turner V a l l e y . S t . L o u i s w a s i n s u r e d by Canadian

S u r e t y Company (Canadian S u r e t y ) .

On J u l y 3 0 , 1975, Donna F i t z g e r a l d f i l e d t h i s s u i t i n
t h e Cascade County D i s t r i c t C o u r t a g a i n s t Aetna, Markel, and

Canadian S u r e t y t o c o l l e c t on t h e judgment g r a n t e d h e r i n

Federal Court. I n h e r c o m p l a i n t s h e p r a y e d f o r t h e amount

of t h e judgment s h e had r e c e i v e d i n F e d e r a l C o u r t , p l u s

i n t e r e s t ; f o r p u n i t i v e damages; f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s ;
and f o r damages f o r m e n t a l d i s t r e s s a l l e g e d l y caused h e r

b e c a u s e of t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' l a c k o f good f a i t h and m a l i c i o u s
and o p p r e s s i v e c o n d u c t .

Aetna t w i c e removed t h e s u i t t o F e d e r a l C o u r t , b u t e a c h

t i m e p l a i n t i f f was s u c c e s s f u l i n remanding i t t o s t a t e
c o u r t . Markel and Canadian S u r e t y were e v e n t u a l l y d i s m i s s e d

from t h e s u i t f o r l a c k o f p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n .

Following p r e t r i a l d i s c o v e r y , Aetna moved f o r summary

judgment on a l l i s s u e s and Donna F i t z g e r a l d moved f o r p a r t i a l

summary judgment as t o t h e amount Aetna a l l e g e d l y owed h e r

a s T u r n e r V a l l e y ' s i n s u r e r under t h e F e d e r a l C o u r t judgment.

The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d a n o r d e r d e n y i n g A e t n a ' s motion

f o r s m n a r y judgment and g r a n t i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s motion f o r

p a r t i a l summary judgment.
Aetna a p p e a l s from t h i s o r d e r . It has a l s o f i l e d a

p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l ( ~ o c k e No.
t

13888) i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h i t s a p p e a l r e q u e s t i n g t h i s C o u r t

t o d i r e c t t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o dismiss p l a i n t i f f ' s claims
f o r p u n i t i v e damages and t o e n t e r summary judgment i n i t s
f a v o r on t h e m e r i t s of t h e c a s e .
Aetna r a i s e s t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s on a p p e a l and i n i t s

a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l :
1. Did t h e ~ i s t r i c C o u r t e r r i n denying A e t n a ' s
t
motion f o r summary judgment and i n e n t e r i n g p a r t i a l summary
judgment f o r p l a i n t i f f ?

2. Is a c l a i m f o r p u n i t i v e damages a l l o w a b l e under

s e c t i o n 17-208, R.C.M. 1947, i n a s u i t by a t h i r d p a r t y

a g a i n s t a n a u t o m o b i l e l i a b i l i t y i n s u r e r t o c o l l e c t a judg-
ment p r e v i o u s l y e n t e r e d a g a i n s t t h e i n s u r e d ?

The f i r s t i s s u e r e l a t e s t o p o l i c y c o v e r a g e and t o t h e

v a l i d i t y o f c e r t a i n p o l i c y d e f e n s e s which Aetna a s s e r t s

p r o t e c t s i t from l i a b i l i t y a g a i n s t t h e i n s u r e d , and t h e r e f o r e

from l i a b i l i t y a g a i n s t p l a i n t i f f : (1) A e t n a l s i n s u r a n c e

c o n t r a c t w i t h T u r n e r V a l l e y c o v e r e d o n l y "nonowned" v e h i c l e s ;
and ( 2 ) c e r t a i n " s t a t u t o r y c o n d i t i o n s " i n A e t n a l s p o l i c y ,

i n s e r t e d i n compliance w i t h A l b e r t a , Canada law, suspended

c o v e r a g e w h i l e a c o v e r e d v e h i c l e w a s engaged i n a n i l l e g a l

o p e r a t i o n o r w h i l e a n i n t o x i c a t e d d r i v e r was d r i v i n g a

covered v e h i c l e .

Aetna c o n t e n d s t h a t any one of t h e s e i s s u f f i c i e n t t o

b a r i t from l i a b i l i t y . F i t z g e r a l d responds t h a t Aetna's

p o l i c y c o v e r e d t h e t r a c t o r - t r a i l e r u n i t and t h a t T u r n e r

V a l l e y d i d n o t v i o l a t e any of t h e " s t a t u t o r y c o n d i t i o n s " .

F i t z g e r a l d f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t even i f T u r n e r V a l l e y d i d

v i o l a t e any of t h o s e c o n d i t i o n s , I n t e r s t a t e Commerce Com-
m i s s i o n r e g u l a t i o n s p r e v e n t Aetna from a s s e r t i n g them a s

d e f e n s e s . Aetna c o u n t e r s t h a t i f Turner V a l l e y and t h u s ,

Aetna, i s t o b e h e l d t o I . C . C . r e g u l a t i o n s even though
Turner V a l l e y d i d n o t have an I . C . C . permit t o operate,

F i t z g e r a l d s h o u l d a l s o be h e l d t o t h o s e same r e g u l a t i o n s .
The I . C . C . r e g u l a t i o n s i n f o r c e a t t h e t i m e of t h e a c c i d e n t

waived a n i n s u r e r ' s p o l i c y d e f e n s e s a s t o t h e f i r s t $25,000.00

of insurance. Because of o u r d e c i s i o n t h a t no p o l i c y con-

d i t i o n s were v i o l a t e d , w e need n o t d i s c u s s t h e i s s u e o f
w h e t h e r and t o what e x t e n t I . C . C . r e g u l a t i o n s waived A e t n a ' s

policy defenses.
The i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y which Aetna s o l d t o T u r n e r V a l l e y

was a "Composite M e r c a n t i l e P o l i c y " f o r f i r e i n s u r a n c e ,

i n l a n d m a r i n e i n s u r a n c e , r o b b e r y and b u r g l a r y i n s u r a n c e , a s

w e l l a s g e n e r a l comprehensive l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e . Included

w i t h i n t h e l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e was a n "S.P.F. No. 6 S t a n d a r d

Non-owned Automobile P o l i c y " . Section A of t h a t policy,
e n t i t l e d "Third P a r t y L i a b i l i t y " contained t h e b a s i c auto-

m o b i l e i n s u r i n g agreement:

"The I n s u r e r a g r e e s t o indemnify t h e I n s u r e d
a g a i n s t t h e l i a b i l i t y imposed by l a w upon t h e
I n s u r e d f o r l o s s o r damage a r i s i n g from t h e
u s e o r o p e r a t i o n o f any a u t o m o b i l e n o t owned
i n whole o r i n p a r t by o r l i c e n s e d i n t h e
name of t h e I n s u r e d * * *."

Both p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t t h e t r a c t o r - t r a i l e r u n i t i s a n

"automobile" w i t h i n t h e t e r m s of t h e p o l i c y . The d i f f i c u l t y

a r i s e s b e c a u s e o f t h e s p l i t o w n e r s h i p of t h e u n i t . Turner

V a l l e y owned o n l y t h e t r a i l e r ; i t h i r e d b o t h t h e t r a c t o r and

t h e d r i v e r C o l l i c o t t from S t . L o u i s . I t e m 5 i n the defini-

t i o n s e c t i o n o f t h e p o l i c y , however, p r o v i d e s t h a t f o r
purposes o f t h e I n s u r e r ' s l i a b i l i t y under S e c t i o n A of t h e

p o l i c y , a n o t o r v e h i c l e and a t r a i l e r a t t a c h e d t o it c o n s t i -
t u t e one automobile. Therefore, w e s h a l l t r e a t t h i s u n i t a s

one automobile.
A d d i t i o n a l l y , T u r n e r V a l l e y ' s i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y form i s

e x p r e s s l y made a p a r t o f t h e i n s u r a n c e c o n t r a c t . I t e m 5 of

t h a t form d e s i g n a t e s t h e c o v e r a g e p r o v i d e d f o r " h i r e d a u t o -

mobiles". Typed i n t h i s s p a c e a r e t h e s e words: "NOT
ANTICIPATED, COVERED I F ANY".
Both p a r t i e s c o n t e n d t h a t t h e l a n g u a g e of t h e b a s i c

a u t o m o b i l e i n s u r i n g a g r e e m e n t i n t h e p o l i c y i s unambiguous,
although each i n t e r p r e t s t h i s language d i f f e r e n t l y : Fitz-

g e r a l d a r g u e s t h a t i t c o v e r s a u t o m o b i l e s which a r e p a r t i a l l y
owned by t h e i n s u r e d ; Aetna a r g u e s t h a t it d o e s n o t .

I n o u r view, t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e b a s i c a u t o m o b i l e

i n s u r i n g agreement i s ambiguous b e c a u s e i t i s s u b j e c t t o two

r e p u g n a n t and i n c o n s i s t e n t meanings. The language c o u l d b e

c o n s t r u e d t o p r o v i d e c o v e r a g e f o r a n a u t o m o b i l e n o t wholly

owned o r n o t p a r t i a l l y owned by Turner V a l l e y i n which c a s e

c o v e r a g e would be a f f o r d e d h e r e . On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e

language could be construed t o provide coverage only f o r an

a u t o m o b i l e which i s n e i t h e r owned i n whole n o r i n p a r t by

Turner V a l l e y i n which c a s e t h e r e would b e no c o v e r a g e i n

t h i s accident.

Where a n a m b i g u i t y i n a n i n s u r a n c e c o n t r a c t e x i s t s ,

e v e r y d o u b t s h o u l d b e r e s o l v e d i n f a v o r of t h e i n s u r e d and

t h e p o l i c y s h o u l d be s t r i c t l y c o n s t r u e d a g a i n s t t h e i n s u r e r .

Alpha Real E s t a t e Development, I n c . v . Aetna L i f e & Casualty

Co., (1977), Mont. , 5 7 0 P.2d 585, 34 St.Rep. 1130;

F a s s i o v . Montana P h y s i c i a n s ' S e r v i c e , (1976), Mont.

, 553 P.2d 998, 33 St.Rep. 457; Mountain West Farm Bur.

v. Neal, ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169 Mont. 317, 547 P.2d 79.

T h e r e a r e l o g i c a l r e a s o n s f o r t h i s r u l e of p o l i c y

construction. I n o r d i n a r y c o n t r a c t law, t h e l a n g u a g e i s

c o n s t r u e d most s t r o n g l y a g a i n s t t h e p a r t y who d r a f t e d t h e

c o n t r a c t , b e c a u s e i t i s h i s language which c r e a t e d t h e

a m b i g u i t y o r u n c e r t a i n t y of meaning. S e c t i o n 13-720, R.C.M.

1947; S c i n s k i v . G r e a t N o r t h e r n L i f e I n s . Co., (1940), 1 1 0

Mont. 106, 111, 99 P.2d 218, ~ d d i t i o n a l l y , an i n s u r a n c e
p o l i c y i s an a d h e s i o n c o n t r a c t . Equal b a r g a i n i n g s t r e n g t h

between t h e i n s u r e d and t h e i n s u r e r c o n c e r n i n g t h e t e r m s of
t h e p o l i c y simply d o e s n o t e x i s t ; t h e i n s u r e r d r a f t s t h e
l a n g u a g e of t h e p o l i c y and o f f e r s i t t o t h e i n s u r e d on a

take-it-or-leave-it b a s i s ; t h e i n s u r e d h a s no v o i c e i n i t s
terms o r language. S t e v e n v. F i d e l i t y and C a s u a l t y Co. of

N e w York, ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 27 C a l - R p t r . 172, 377 P . 2 d 284, 292-93.

F i n a l l y , t h e e x t e n t of c o v e r a g e i s c a p a b l e of c l e a r , l u c i d

and unambiguous d e f i n i t i o n which t h e i n s u r e r , by a c c i d e n t o r

d e s i g n , f a i l e d t o e x p r e s s ; h e r e , f o r example, had Aetna

i n t e n d e d t o l i m i t i t s c o v e r a g e t o a u t o m o b i l e s n e i t h e r owned
i n whole n o r i n p a r t , it c o u l d c l e a r l y have s o s t a t e d .

A c c o r d i n g l y , we c o n s t r u e t h e a m b i g u i t y a g a i n s t t h e
i n s u r e r and i n f a v o r o f t h e i n s u r e d . W construe the basic
e

a u t o m o b i l e i n s u r i n g agreement i n S e c t i o n A of t h e p o l i c y t o

mean t h a t c o v e r a g e i s p r o v i d e d f o r a n a u t o m o b i l e n o t owned

i n p a r t by t h e i n s u r e d . A s t h e automobile i n q u e s t i o n i s

o n e u n i t and p a r t of t h a t u n i t was owned by S t . L o u i s ,

coverage i s afforded Turner Valley here.
T h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n i s f u r t h e r s t r e n g t h e n e d by t h e p o l i c y

a p p l i c a t i o n which i s e x p r e s s l y made a p a r t of t h e i n s u r a n c e

contract. I t provides t h a t " h i r e d automobiles" coverage,

w h i l e " n o t a n t i c i p a t e d " i s " c o v e r e d i f any". An i n s u r a n c e
p o l i c y i s t o b e r e a d a s a whole a n d , i f p o s s i b l e , t h e v a r i o u s

p a r t s a r e t o be r e c o n c i l e d and g i v e n meaning and e f f e c t .

A l e k s i c h v . Mutual B e n e f i t H e a l t h & A c c i d e n t Assn., (1945),

118 Mont. 223, 164 P.2d 372. Since t h e t r a c t o r u n i t w a s
c l e a r l y a " h i r e d a u t o m o b i l e " , i t was c o v e r e d by t h e e x p r e s s

t e r m s of t h e p o l i c y . To h o l d o t h e r w i s e would deny e f f e c t t o

t h i s p r o v i s i o n of t h e p o l i c y i n o u r view.
The second and t h i r d p o l i c y d e f e n s e s which Aetna a s s e r t s

a r e based upon c o n d i t i o n s r e q u i r e d by A l b e r t a l a w t o b e

included i n every insurance c o n t r a c t w r i t t e n i n t h e province

o f A l b e r t a , Canada. ALTA. REV. STAT., Ch. 1 8 7 , 8288. ~hese
s t a t u t o r y c o n d i t i o n s a r e a t t a c h e d a s endorsements t o A e t n a ' s

p o l i c y w i t h Turner V a l l e y . They p r o v i d e i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t :

" P r o h i b i t e d U s e by O t h e r s .

" ( 2 ) The i n s u r e d s h a l l n o t p e r m i t , s u f f e r ,
a l l o w o r c o n n i v e a t t h e u s e of t h e a u t o m o b i l e

" ( a ) by any p e r s o n under t h e i n f l u e n c e of
intoxicating l i q u o r o r drugs t o such a n
extent a s t o be f o r the t i m e being incapable
of t h e p r o p e r c o n t r o l of t h e automobile; o r

" ( c ) f o r any i l l i c i t o r p r o h i b i t e d t r a d e o r
transportation".

The A l b e r t a Lnsurance A c t , ALTA. REV. STAT., Ch. 1 8 7 ,

8288, r e q u i r e s t h a t p o l i c i e s i s s u e d t h e r e u n d e r i n c l u d e as a

p a r t of t h e p o l i c y p r o v i s i o n s c e r t a i n " s t a t u t o r y c o n d i t i o n s " .

P l a i n t i f f contends t h a t t h e s e s t a t u t o r y c o n d i t i o n s do n o t

apply t o a covered v e h i c l e involved i n an a c c i d e n t occurring

o u t s i d e of A l b e r t a , Canada. She a r g u e s t h a t t h e p h r a s e " i n

these s t a t u t o r y conditions" indicates t h a t these conditions

a r e applicable only i n Alberta.

W e hold t h a t t h i s contention i s untenable. These

c o n d i t i o n s by s t a t u t e a r e deemed t o b e a p a r t of e v e r y
insurance contract w r i t t e n i n Alberta. ALTA REV. STAT., ch.

187, § 2 8 8 ( 1 ) ( a ) . Additionally, they w e r e s p e c i f i c a l l y
w r i t t e n i n t o t h e "Endorsement" S e c t i o n of t h i s p o l i c y . No

language i n t h i s p o l i c y l i m i t s t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n s o l e l y t o

t h e p r o v i n c e o f A l b e r t a , Canada. They t h e r e f o r e form a p a r t
of t h e c o n t r a c t f o r a l l p u r p o s e s .
I n i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law i n Donna
F i t z g e r a l d ' s s u i t a g a i n s t Turner V a l l e y , S t . L o u i s , and
C o l l i c o t t , t h e F e d e r a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t a t t h e t i m e

of t h e a c c i d e n t C o l l i c o t t was drunk and t h a t C o l l i c o t t ' s
drunkenness was s u f f i c i e n t t o i m p a i r h i s d r i v i n g c a p a c i t y .
F i t z g e r a l d v . Turner V a l l e y T r a n s p o r t , Civ. No. 3213 (D.

Mont. 1 9 7 5 ) . Aetna c o n t e n d s t h a t under t h e s t a t u t o r y con-

d i t i o n s i n i t s p o l i c y w i t h Turner Valley, t h i s f i n d i n g

a b s o l v e s Aetna from l i a b i l i t y t o Turner V a l l e y and h e n c e , t o

the plaintiff.

The s t a t u t o r y c o n d i t i o n i n v o l v e d h e r e , however, p r o v i d e s

t h a t t h e insured s h a l l n o t "permit, s u f f e r , allow o r connive"

a t t h e u s e of a n i n s u r e d a u t o m o b i l e by a p e r s o n who i s

i n c a p a c i t a t e d because of l i q u o r . Webster's d e f i n e s "permit"

t o mean c o n s e n t t o o r a u t h o r i z e ; " s u f f e r " t o mean n o t t o
f o r b i d o r h i n d e r ; " a l l o w " t o mean approve o r s a n c t i o n ; and

" c o n n i v e " t o mean f a i l t o t a k e a c t i o n a g a i n s t a known

wrongdoing o r m i s b e h a v i o r . Webster's Third I n t e r n a t i o n a l

D i c t i o n a r y (Unabridged, 1 9 7 1 ) . A s used h e r e we u n d e r s t a n d

t h e s e t e r m s t o mean t h a t t h e i n s u r e d must f i r s t have knowledge

t h a t t h e u s e r i s engaged i n a p r o h i b i t e d a c t i v i t y b e f o r e h e

may " p e r m i t , s u f f e r , a l l o w o r c o n n i v e " a t such u s e .

F o r Aetna t o s u c c e s s f u l l y a s s e r t t h i s s t a t u t o r y c o n d i -

t i o n , i t must show t h a t Turner V a l l e y had knowledge t h a t
C o l l i c o t t w a s o p e r a t i n g t h e t r a c t o r - t r a i l e r u n i t while he

was i n c a p a c i t a t e d b e c a u s e of d r i n k . Aetna h a s shown no such
knowledge by Turner V a l l e y , and d u r i n g o r a l argument h a s

a d m i t t e d t h a t T u r n e r V a l l e y i n f a c t had no knowledge of

C o l l i c o t t ' s drunkenness. This policy defense, t h e r e f o r e ,

fails.
The t h i r d p o l i c y d e f e n s e i n v o l v e s t h e i n s u r e d ' s u s e of
the tractor-trailer u n i t i n i l l i c i t o r prohibited trade or

transportation. The F e d e r a l C o u r t found t h a t n e i t h e r Turner

V a l l e y , S t . L o u i s n o r C o l l i c o t t had e i t h e r a Montana ail road

Commission o r a n I n t e r s t a t e Commerce Commission p e r m i t t o

o p e r a t e i n Montana. F i t z g e r a l d v . T u r n e r v a l l e y T r a n s p o r t ,

s u p r a . Aetna c o n t e n d s t h a t i n t h e a b s e n c e of such p e r m i t s ,
Turner V a l l e y , S t . L o u i s , and C o l l i c o t t w e r e engaged i n

" i l l i c i t o r p r o h i b i t e d t r a d e o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n " , and conse-

q u e n t l y , c o v e r a g e under t h e p o l i c y w a s suspended.

~ i t z g e r a l dr e l i e s upon T r a v e l e r s Mut. C a s u a l t y Co. v .
Rector, ( 8 t h C i r . 1 9 4 3 ) , 138 F.2d 3 9 6 , t o c o n c l u d e t h a t

T u r n e r V a l l e y ' s t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i n t o Montana w i t h o u t I . C . C .

and Montana p e r m i t s d o e s n o t c o n s t i t u t e " i l l i c i t o r pro-

hibited trade o r transportation".

I n R e c t o r p l a i n t i f f ' s d e c e a s e d was k i l l e d i n a n a u t o -
mobile-truck c o l l i s i o n i n Louisiana. Ford B r o t h e r s Van &

S t o r a g e Company (Ford C o . ) , a motor c a r r i e r o u t of Omaha,

Nebraska, owned and o p e r a t e d t h e t r u c k . The p l a i n t i f f

o b t a i n e d judgment a g a i n s t Ford Co. f o r $10,000.00. When

e x e c u t i o n on t h e judgment was r e t u r n e d u n s a t i s f i e d , s h e

b r o u g h t s u i t a g a i n s t T r a v e l e r s Mutual C a s u a l t y Co., Ford

CO.'S insurer.

T r a v e l e r s d e f e n d e d t h e s u i t on two b a s e s : (1) t h a t

under T r a v e l e r s ' t e r r i t o r i a l r e s t r i c t i o n s i n Ford C o . ' s

p o l i c y , t h e t r u c k was n o t c o v e r e d w h i l e b e i n g o p e r a t e d i n

L o u i s i a n a ; and ( 2 ) t h a t a t t h e t i m e o f t h e c o l l i s i o n t h e
t r u c k was b e i n g o p e r a t e d i n a n " i l l i c i t t r a d e o r p r o h i b i t e d

t r a d e o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n " b e c a u s e Ford Co. d i d n o t have a n

I.C.C. l i c e n s e t o o p e r a t e i n Louisiana, t h u s excluding it
from c o v e r a g e under t h e t e r m s of t h e p o l i c y .

The c o u r t i n R e c t o r r e s o l v e d t h e f i r s t i s s u e i n f a v o r
of t h e p l a i n t i f f . A s t o whether Ford Co. was engaged i n
i l l i c i t o r prohibited trade or transportation, the court

h e l d t h a t t h a t i s s u e was n o t p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h e c o u r t . It

d i d , however, s a y t h a t i f i t had been p r o p e r l y p r e s e n t e d , i t
d i d n o t f e e l t h a t Ford C o . ' s f a i l u r e t o have a n 1 . C . C .

p e r i n i t t o o p e r a t e i n L o u i s i a n a a t t h e t i m e of t h e a c c i d e n t

was s u f f i c i e n t t o f i n d t h a t Ford C o . ' s o p e r a t i o n of t h e
t r u c k i n L o u i s i a n a was " i l l i c i t o r p r o h i b i t e d " within the

meaning o f t h e p o l i c y i n s u i t .

W e a g r e e w i t h t h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h e R e c t o r c o u r t . The

t e r r i t o r i a l p r o v i s i o n of t h i s p o l i c y s p e c i f i c a l l y makes t h e
p o l i c y a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e u s e o r o p e r a t i o n of c o v e r e d a u t o m o b i l e s

w i t h i n Canada o r t h e United S t a t e s . W e hold t h a t Turner

V a l l e y ' s f a i l u r e t o have a n I . C . C . o r Montana p e r m i t f o r

t r a n s p o r t i n g goods i n t o and t h r o u g h Montana d o e s n o t c o n s t i t u t e

" i l l i c i t o r prohibited trade o r transportation" within the
meaning of t h i s p o l i c y under s u c h c i r c u m s t a n c e s .

The o n l y o t h e r r e m a i n i n g i s s u e r e l a t e s t o A e t n a ' s
p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l . Plaintiff's

complaint i n t h i s cause s t a t e d t h r e e counts: Count I t o

r e c o v e r t h e amount o f t h e judgment awarded h e r i n F e d e r a l

D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e wrongful d e a t h of h e r husband; Count

I1 f o r p u n i t i v e damages, a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s f o r A e t n a ' s

a l l e g e d m a l i c i o u s , o p p r e s s i v e and f r a u d u l e n t misconduct and

l a c k of good f a i t h ; and Count I11 f o r compensatory damages

f o r m e n t a l d i s t r e s s a l l e g e d l y c a u s e d p l a i n t i f f by A e t n a ' s

conduct.

On November 1 8 , 1975, Aetna moved t o s t r i k e t h e second
and t h i r d c o u n t s of p l a i n t i f f ' s c o m p l a i n t . On J u l y 1 2 ,

1976, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d A e t n a ' s motion t o s t r i k e .

Aetna now s e e k s r e v i e w o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e n i a l by
means o f a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l .

An o r d e r d e n y i n g a motion t o s t r i k e i s n o t a n a p p e a l a b l e
order. Rule 1, I4.R.Agp.Civ.P. Such a n o r d e r i s i n t e r l o c u -
tory i n character. I t i s r e v i e w a b l e on a p p e a l from a f i n a l

judgment. Rule 2 , M.R.App.Civ.P. To p e r m i t r e v i e w of s u c h

a n o r d e r p r i o r t o f i n a l judgment t h r o u g h t h e d e v i c e of

supervisory control o r other extraordinary w r i t i s t o

accomplish i n d i r e c t l y t h a t which c a n n o t b e done d i r e c t l y .
See State ex rel. Kosena v. District Court, (1977),
Mont. , 560 P.2d 522, 34 St.Rep. 87. Accordingly, we
decline to review the District Court's denial of defendant's
motion to strike at this time as the issue is not properly
before us.
The District Court's order denying defendant summary
judgment and granting plaintiff partial summary judgment is
affirmed. Defendant's petition for a writ of supervisory
control is denied.

?A& J f% \
4
Chief ~ustice

We Concur:

Judge, sitting with the Court.