file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm
No. 99-191
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2000 MT 16 [57 St.Rep. 89]
298 Mont. 101
994 P. 2d 1105
ROXY SHILHANEK, an individual, COREY
SHILHANEK, a minor by and through his guardian
ad litem, TIMOTHY SHILHANEK, RYAN
SHILHANEK, a minor by and through his guardian
ad litem, TIMOTHY SHILHANEK, and TIMOTHY
SHILHANEK, an individual,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v.
D-2 TRUCKING, INC., a corporation,
KRZYSZTOF CEKLARZ, an individual, and
ADAM CWIKLA,
Defendants and Appellants,
and
CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Intervenor and Cross-Appellant.
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm (1 of 22)3/28/2007 2:26:50 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Yellowstone,
The Honorable Russell C. Fagg, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellants:
Don M. Hayes, Brown Law Firm, P.C.; Billings, Montana
For Respondents:
Joe B. Cordileone, Law Offices of Joe B. Cordileone;
Billings, Montana
A. Clifford Edwards, Edwards Law Firm; Billings, Montana
For Cross-Appellant:
Lon J. Dale, Milodragovich, Dale, Steinbrenner & Binney, P.C.;
Missoula, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: August~12, 1999
Decided: January 20, 2000
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Jim Regnier delivered the opinion of the Court.
¶1.D-2 Trucking, Inc., Krzysztof Ceklarz, and Adam Cwikla (Appellants) appeal from several post-
verdict orders entered
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm (2 of 22)3/28/2007 2:26:50 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm
by the District Court regarding collateral source offsets, satisfaction of the punitive damage award, and
credit for payments
deposited with the federal district court. In addition, Canal Insurance Company (Canal) appeals pursuant
to Rule 5(3),
M.R.App.P., from the District Court's order dated February 17, 1999, allowing it to intervene as a party.
We affirm.
¶2.The issues presented on appeal are as follows:
¶3. Did the District Court err when it denied the Appellants' request for an offset from the judgment for
money paid to
the Shilhaneks by a collateral source?
¶4. Did the District Court err when it denied the Appellants' request for an offset from the judgment for
money held on
deposit with the federal district court representing payment of medical expenses incurred by Roxy and
Corey Shilhanek?
¶5. Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it denied the Appellants' request to allocate money
tendered to the
Shilhaneks toward the punitive damage award and the Appellants' request to require the Shilhaneks to
file a corresponding
satisfaction of judgment with respect to the punitive damage award?
¶6. Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it allowed Canal to intervene and declared that Canal
shall be
treated as any other party to this action?
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶9.On May 4, 1997, Roxy Shilhanek and her youngest son, Corey, were involved in a vehicle accident
that occurred at the
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm (3 of 22)3/28/2007 2:26:50 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm
intersection of South Billings Boulevard and the on-ramp to the eastbound I-90 freeway in Billings,
Montana. On August 11,
1997, the Shilhanek family brought an action against the owners and the driver of the truck involved in
the accident for
damages they sustained as a result of the accident. At the conclusion of the trial held July 20-24, 1998,
the jury returned the
following verdict in favor of the Shilhaneks:
Roxy Shilhanek $2,747,000
Tim Shilhanek $ 100,000
Corey Shilhanek $ 25,000
Ryan Shilhanek $ 25,000
Punitive Damages $ 220,000
¶10.Following the jury's verdict, the Appellants filed a motion on August 19, 1998, pursuant to §§ 27-1-
307 and -308,
MCA (1997), requesting that the Shilhaneks be required to disclose all collateral sources and potential
sources of offsets or
credits against the judgment, along with the existence of any subrogation claims. In addition, the
Appellants requested that a
credit or offset against the judgment in favor of Roxy and Corey Shilhanek be given for monies
deposited with the federal
district court, representing past medical expenses incurred by Roxy and Corey Shilhanek. The
Appellants also requested that
a credit or offset against the judgment in favor of Roxy Shilhanek be given for advance payments that
had been made. The
Appellants concluded their motion by requesting the District Court to conduct a hearing as required by §
27-1-308, MCA
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm (4 of 22)3/28/2007 2:26:50 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm
(1997), regarding any collateral source or offset issues not agreed upon by the parties.
¶11.The District Court scheduled a hearing for October 2, 1998, and requested the parties to make a
good faith effort to
stipulate to the collateral sources and offsets prior to the hearing. The Shilhaneks filed a brief in
opposition to the hearing on
the basis that the requirements for such a hearing pursuant to § 27-1-308, MCA (1997), had not been
met. The Appellants
replied by reiterating the arguments set forth in their initial brief and by pointing out that such a hearing
was necessary to
determine the existence of any collateral sources. The District Court concluded that a determination of
offsets for collateral
sources should be conducted at this time in the event the Shilhaneks are able to collect their judgment in
the future.
¶12.After the hearing, the parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to
the District Court's
request. On October 9, 1998, the District Court entered its order denying the Appellants' motion for
offset of collateral
sources without prejudice. The District Court based its decision on the language of the applicable statute,
which requires that
the injured party will be fully compensated for his damages prior to any reduction. See § 27-1-308(1),
MCA (1997).
¶13.The Shilhaneks argued that the insurance proceeds, which amounted to a little over $1 million, and
the assets of the
Appellants would be exhausted long before they could recover the full judgment in excess of $3 million.
Thus, the Shilhaneks
concluded that only upon actual payment of the judgment would they be fully compensated. Conversely,
the Appellants
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm (5 of 22)3/28/2007 2:26:50 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm
contend that so long as the jury does not make a finding of comparative negligence on the part of the
Plaintiffs, the jury's award
constitutes full compensation. Faced with the question of whether the mere award of damages or the
actual payment of the
award fully compensates a plaintiff, the District Court concluded that it seems all too clear the
legislature contemplated actual
payment to an injured party before he could be considered "fully compensated." Accordingly, the
District Court determined
that until the Shilhaneks will be fully compensated for their injuries, the Appellants are not entitled to a
collateral source hearing
or a reduction in the Shilhaneks' recovery.
¶14.On September 28, 1998, the Appellants delivered to the Shilhaneks' counsel, checks representing the
amount of the
punitive damage award plus interest through that date, along with a request that a satisfaction of
judgment for the punitive
damage award plus interest be entered. The Shilhaneks' counsel refused tender and returned the checks
and refused to enter
satisfaction of the punitive damage award. On October 8, 1998, the Appellants moved the District Court
for an order
directing the deposit of funds with the clerk of court, which represents the punitive damage award, and
compelling the
Shilhaneks to enter a satisfaction of judgment with respect to the punitive damage award. Once the
matter had been fully
briefed by the parties, the District Court entered its order denying the Appellants' motion on November
6, 1998. The District
Court noted that this was a discretionary issue for the court, cited a lack of basis in the law for the
Appellants' request, turned
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm (6 of 22)3/28/2007 2:26:50 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm
to basic issues of fairness, and concluded that the equities were not in favor of such a ruling given the
chasm between the
damages awarded and the damages recoverable. The District Court went on to state that it appears highly
unlikely that the
Shilhaneks will ever receive even half of their damages and the court will not make the situation worse
by subjecting roughly a
fifth of the available recovery to taxation.
¶15.On October 14, 1998, the Appellants filed a motion for reconsideration of the District Court's
October 9, 1998, order
denying their motion for offset of collateral sources on the basis that it failed to address two key matters:
payment made to
Tim Shilhanek by State Farm Insurance Company (State Farm) pursuant to his underinsured-motorist
coverage; and money
placed on deposit with the federal district court, which represents payment of medical expenses incurred
by Roxy and Corey
Shilhanek. Appellants assert that they should be given credit against the judgment for the money paid by
State Farm to Tim
Shilhanek. In addition, Appellants request the District Court to grant them a partial satisfaction of
judgment for the money
currently on deposit with the federal district court. The Shilhaneks opposed the motion based on the fact
that they will not be
fully compensated for their injuries.
¶16.On November 15, 1998, the District Court entered its order denying the Appellants' request for an
offset for money paid
to Tim Shilhanek by State Farm. The District Court noted that while the jury had awarded Tim
Shilhanek $100,000 in
compensatory damages, it had also awarded $220,000 in punitive damages, which are properly allocated
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm (7 of 22)3/28/2007 2:26:50 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm
evenly among the
four Plaintiffs. Based on its ruling denying the Appellants' request for satisfaction of the punitive
damage award, the District
Court determined that none of the Shilhaneks will be fully compensated.
¶17.With regard to the Appellants' request for a credit for the amount of money deposited with the
federal district court, the
District Court requested the parties to brief the issue of whether the money deposited with the federal
district court constitutes
a voluntary payment under § 26-1-701, MCA (1997). The District Court was seeking a reason why it
should not wait for the
federal district court to decide who has a right to those funds.
¶18.On November 19, 1998, the Appellants filed a motion for reconsideration of the District Court's
order of November 6,
1998, denying Appellants' motion to compel satisfaction of the punitive damage award. The primary
basis cited for the
Appellants' motion for reconsideration was the discovery of statutory authority, § 28-1-1106, MCA
(1997), supporting the
designation of funds for the payment of punitive damages. It was Appellants' position that the referenced
statute provided
them with the power to designate that a payment be credited to a particular obligation. The Shilhaneks
responded by pointing
out that the Appellants' reliance upon the referenced statute was misplaced as it dealt with contractual
obligations and not
judgments.
¶19.The District Court stood by the reasoning of its previous order and denied the Appellants' motion for
reconsideration on
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm (8 of 22)3/28/2007 2:26:50 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm
January 19, 1999. The District Court stated that the Appellants had not persuaded the court that their
newly cited statutory
authority applies to this situation. The District Court concluded that § 28-1-1106, MCA (1997), governs
a debtor's
performance when he is under several obligations and has no applicability to the judgment at issue. The
District Court noted
that the rules applicable to obligations arising from judgments are found in Title 25, MCA. In closing,
the District Court
pointed out that the only issue remaining was the Appellants' request for a credit for funds deposited
with the federal district
court.
¶20.Pursuant to the District Court's order of November 15, 1998, the parties submitted additional briefs
concerning the
money on deposit with the federal district court. The Appellants asserted that they initiated an
interpleader action in federal
district court and deposited the funds for medical expenses incurred by Roxy and Corey Shilhanek
pursuant to Ridley v.
Guaranty National Insurance Company (1997), 286 Mont. 325, 951 P.2d 987, since the Shilhaneks'
health insurance
provider had paid many of the expenses incurred. The Appellants claimed that Ridley did not address to
whom or how such
expenses were to be paid and that the payment should be classified as a voluntary payment under § 26-1-
701, MCA (1997).
The Shilhaneks responded by asserting that the Ridley decision required the Appellants to pay the
medical expenses directly
to the injured Plaintiffs and that the Appellants should not be given credit for a voluntary payment by
tying up the funds in
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm (9 of 22)3/28/2007 2:26:50 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm
federal court.
¶21.On January 20, 1999, the District Court issued its order denying, without prejudice, the Appellants'
motion for
reconsideration of the court's October 9, 1998, order, regarding Appellants' request for a credit for
money deposited with the
federal court, pending the eventual decision of the federal court. The District Court reasoned that the
voluntary payment
scheme is supposed to expedite the handling of claims, not stop them in their tracks. The District Court
went on to state that it
would not intervene in the business of the federal court to untangle the web the Appellants' insurer had
woven.
¶22.On February 1, 1999, Canal filed a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 24, M.R.Civ.P., for the
purpose of filing the
attached Rule 52(b), M.R.Civ.P., motion to amend the District Court's order of January 20, 1999. In its
brief in support of
the motion to intervene, Canal requested the District Court to allow it to intervene for the limited
purpose of providing factual
information to correct errors of fact. The Shilhaneks agreed that Canal should be allowed to intervene,
but requested that
Canal be allowed to intervene in the action as a full party and not for the limited purpose of attacking the
District Court's
January 20, 1999, order. In its February 17, 1999, order, the District Court acknowledged that Rule 24
(b), M.R.Civ.P.,
allows for intervention when an applicant's claim or defense and the main action have a question of law
or fact in common.
The District Court sided with the Shilhaneks and allowed Canal to intervene in the action, but declared
that Canal shall be
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm (10 of 22)3/28/2007 2:26:50 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm
treated as any other party to this action.
¶23.Upon filing of the District Court's order allowing Canal to intervene, the Rule 52(b), M.R.Civ.P.,
motion to amend and
brief in support that had been previously lodged with the court were filed on February 19, 1999. On the
same date, Roxy and
Tim Shilhanek filed a cross-claim against Canal for violations of the Montana Unfair Practices Act. On
February~22, 1999,
counsel for Canal wrote to counsel for the Shilhaneks and advised that a conflict had arisen as a result of
the Shilhaneks'
cross-claim against Canal and that Canal would need to obtain different counsel.
¶24.On February 24, 1999, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal from the following orders entered by
the District Court:
Order and Memorandum on Collateral Sources dated October 9, 1998;
Order and Memorandum Re: Motion to Compel Satisfaction of Punitive Damage Award dated
November 6, 1998;
Order and Memorandum dated November 15, 1998;
Order and Memorandum Re: Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to Compel Satisfaction of
Punitive Damages dated
January 19, 1999; and
Order and Memorandum Re: Money Interpled in Federal Court dated January~20, 1999.
In light of the recent filings, on March 4, 1999, the Shilhaneks filed a motion to stay and suspend any
required response to
Canal's motion to amend pending the District Court convening a status and scheduling conference. On
March 5, 1999, new
counsel for Canal filed a Notice of Representation and Response to Request for Status Conference and
Scheduling
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm (11 of 22)3/28/2007 2:26:50 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm
Conference. On March 8, 1999, original counsel for Canal filed a notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 5(3),
M.R.App.P.,
concerning the District Court's order of February~17, 1999, allowing Canal to intervene as a party.
¶25.On March 25, 1999, original counsel for Canal filed an Amended Notice of Appeal, which included
reference to Rule
54, M.R.App.P. Accordingly, this Court addresses the issues raised on appeal by the Appellants and
Canal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶26.We review a district court's conclusions of law to determine whether the district court's
interpretation of the law is
correct. See Carbon County v. Union Reserve Coal Co. (1995), 271 Mont. 459, 469, 898 P.2d 680, 686
(citation
omitted). In addition, the standard of review for discretionary trial court rulings is abuse of discretion.
See May v. First Nat'l
Pawn Brokers, Ltd. (1995), 270 Mont. 132, 134, 890 P.2d 386, 388. "The test for abuse of discretion is
whether the trial
court acted arbitrarily without employment of conscientious judgment or exceeded the bounds of reason
resulting in substantial
injustice." Jarvenpaa v. Glacier Elec. Coop., Inc., 1998 MT 306, ¶ 13, 292 Mont. 118, ¶ 13, 970 P.2d 84,
¶ 13 (citation
omitted).
ISSUE 1
¶27.Did the District Court err when it denied the Appellants' request for an offset from the judgment for
money paid to the
Shilhaneks by a collateral source?
¶28.Appellants assert they are entitled to an offset from the judgment in favor of the Shilhaneks for
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm (12 of 22)3/28/2007 2:26:50 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm
payments made by State
Farm to the Shilhaneks pursuant to the terms of their underinsured-motorist coverage. Appellants rely on
§ 27-1-308, MCA
(1997), in support of their assertion. Appellants contend that § 27-1-308, MCA (1997), does not require
the verdict to
actually be paid in order for the Plaintiffs to be fully compensated and since the jury found there was no
comparative
negligence on the part of the Shilhaneks, their awards reflect full compensation for their damages. The
Shilhaneks assert that
the verdict is simply a determination of the amount of money it will take to fully compensate the
Shilhaneks and they will not be
fully compensated until such time as the Appellants actually pay the judgment in excess of $3.1 million.
Following a hearing on
the issue, the District Court concluded that the legislature contemplated actual payment to an injured
party before he could be
considered fully compensated.
¶29.The statute regarding collateral source reductions provides as follows:
Collateral source reductions in actions arising from bodily injury or death-subrogation rights. (1) In an
action arising
from bodily injury or death when the total award against all defendants is in excess of $50,000 and the
plaintiff will be fully
compensated for his damages, exclusive of court costs and attorney fees, a plaintiff's recovery must be
reduced by any
amount paid or payable from a collateral source that does not have a subrogation right.
Section 27-1-308(1), MCA (1997) (emphasis added). Prior to any reduction, two requirements must be
met. The first
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm (13 of 22)3/28/2007 2:26:50 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm
requirement under this statute is that the total award against all defendants must be in excess of $50,000.
See § 27-1-308(1),
MCA (1997). After dividing the punitive damage award among each of the four Plaintiffs equally and
adding it to their
compensatory damage awards, this requirement is satisfied.
¶30.The second requirement under this statute is that the plaintiff will be fully compensated. See § 27-1-
308(1), MCA
(1997). While the statute does not define "fully compensated," it is clear from the plain language of the
statute what the
legislature intended. As the District Court correctly noted, the statute provides that it is a plaintiff's
recovery that must be
reduced by any amount paid or payable from a collateral source without a subrogation right, not a
plaintiff's award. In this
case, there was only $1,000,000 in insurance proceeds available to satisfy the Shilhaneks' judgment of
$3,117,000. In
addition, the entire $1,000,000 has not been paid to the Shilhaneks. Approximately one-fourth of the
proceeds has been
deposited with the federal district court and is the subject of an interpleader action involving the
Shilhaneks and their health
insurance provider.
¶31.To allow the Appellants an offset against the remaining $750,000 in insurance proceeds, clearly
frustrates the intention of
the collateral source statute. As the District Court pointed out, the collateral source statute exists to
ensure that a plaintiff's
eventual recovery has a ceiling no higher than the full amount of the award, minus appropriate collateral
offsets. This is
illustrated by the legislature's use of the word "recovery" as opposed to the word "award" when referring
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm (14 of 22)3/28/2007 2:26:50 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm
to reduction for
payments made by a collateral source.
¶32.Section 27-1-308(1), MCA (1997), mandates a reduction from the plaintiff's recovery for payments
made by a
collateral source when the award against the defendants is in excess of $50,000 and when the plaintiff
will be fully
compensated for his damages. Based on the plain language of the statute, the District Court properly
determined that the
legislature contemplated actual payment to an injured party before they could be considered "fully
compensated." If an injured
party receives an award of monetary damages against a judgment-proof defendant, it cannot be said that
the injured party will
be fully compensated. Thus, the phrase "will be fully compensated" indicates that full payment must be
made.
¶33.Since the Appellants have only paid approximately $750,000 toward the judgment rendered in favor
of the Shilhaneks in
excess of $3,000,000, the second requirement under § 27-1-308(1), MCA (1997), that the plaintiff will
be fully
compensated, has not been met. Thus, we conclude that the District Court did not err when it denied the
Appellants' request
for a collateral source reduction from the judgment in favor of the Shilhaneks.
ISSUE 2
¶34.Did the District Court err when it denied the Appellants' request for an offset from the judgment for
money held on
deposit with the federal district court representing payment of medical expenses incurred by Roxy and
Corey Shilhanek?
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm (15 of 22)3/28/2007 2:26:50 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm
¶35.Appellants argue that they are entitled to a reduction of the damages awarded to Roxy and Corey
Shilhanek
commensurate with the amount of funds deposited with the federal district court for payment of medical
expenses incurred by
Roxy and Corey Shilhanek. Appellants also contend that the funds currently on deposit with the federal
court were paid in
accordance with the Ridley decision and constitute voluntary payments under § 26-1-701, MCA (1997),
entitling them to a
corresponding offset against the judgment in favor of Roxy and Corey Shilhanek. In addition, the
Appellants assert that the
Shilhaneks should be required to file a partial satisfaction of judgment with regard to Roxy and Corey
Shilhanek in that amount.
¶36.The Shilhaneks contend that in spite of the express holding in Ridley, requiring an insurer to pay an
injured third party's
medical expenses prior to final settlement when liability is reasonably clear, the Appellants chose not to
pay Roxy and Corey
Shilhanek. Instead, the Appellants' insurer filed an interpleader action and deposited the funds in federal
district court, making
those funds inaccessible to the Shilhaneks. Since the funds are currently on deposit with the federal
district court and are the
subject of an interpleader action between the Shilhaneks and their health insurance provider, the
Shilhaneks urge this Court to
affirm the District Court and determine that the Appellants are not at this point entitled to an offset
against the judgment for the
funds deposited in federal court.
¶37.The District Court denied the Appellants' request for an offset for the money deposited with the
federal court without
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm (16 of 22)3/28/2007 2:26:50 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm
prejudice, pending the eventual decision of the federal court. In doing so, the District Court stated that
the problem apparent
with the Appellants' line of reasoning was that the money has not yet been paid to the Plaintiffs. In
addition, the District Court
found it significant that a joint request for payment of the accrued medical expenses had been made by
the Shilhaneks, their
health insurance provider, and the administrator of the health insurance plan and the Appellants' insurer
chose to initiate an
interpleader action regarding the funds. The District Court determined that it was not inclined to give a
credit for the interpled
funds, particularly since the Plaintiffs have not been fully compensated.
¶38.Section 26-1-701, MCA (1997), provides:
Legislative policy. The legislature hereby declares that the health, welfare, and safety of the people of
the state of Montana
would be enhanced by the expeditious handling of liability claims. The legislature further declares that
the handling of such
claims would be expedited if voluntary payment by or on behalf of one person to or on behalf of a
person who has
sustained injury to his person or damage to his property could not be construed as an admission of fault
or liability as to
any claim arising out of the occurrence which gave rise to such injury or damage.
Section 26-1-706, MCA (1997), sets forth the effect a voluntary payment will have on a judgment:
After entry of a judgment in an action for damages for personal injuries, including death, or for damage
to property arising out
of any occurrence, any voluntary partial payment theretofore made shall be treated as a credit against
such judgment and shall
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm (17 of 22)3/28/2007 2:26:50 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm
be deductible from the amount of such judgment.
These statutes encourage voluntary payments by or on behalf of one person to or on behalf of a person
who has sustained
injury to his person or damage to his property.
¶39.Here, payment of Roxy and Corey Shilhanek's accrued medical expenses has been deposited with
the federal district
court and is the subject of an interpleader action between the Shilhaneks and their health insurance
provider. Thus, while
payment for Roxy and Corey Shilhanek's accrued medical expenses has been made on behalf of the
Appellants, it has not
been made to the Plaintiffs or anyone on their behalf. Therefore, such voluntary payment does not
currently qualify for a credit
against the judgment in favor of the Shilhaneks under § 26-1-706, MCA (1997). Accordingly, we
conclude that the District
Court did not err when it denied without prejudice the Appellants' request for a credit for the money
deposited with the federal
court, pending the eventual decision of the federal court.
ISSUE 3
¶40.Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it denied the Appellants' request to allocate money
tendered to the
Shilhaneks toward the punitive damage award and when it denied the Appellants' request to require the
Shilhaneks to file a
corresponding satisfaction of judgment with respect to the punitive damage award?
¶41.Appellants argue that they have the power to specifically designate payment to the punitive damage
award and that a
satisfaction of judgment with regard to the punitive damage award should be entered of record.
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm (18 of 22)3/28/2007 2:26:50 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm
Appellants cite various
statutes in support of their position.
¶42.First, Appellants assert that § 25-9-311, MCA (1997), requires the party in whose favor a judgment
has been entered
to provide a satisfaction of that judgment and if the party fails to do so, the district court has the power
to compel the party to
prepare a satisfaction of judgment. Second, Appellants contend that § 28-1-1106, MCA (1997), provides
a debtor with the
power to designate to which particular obligation a payment should be credited. Lastly, Appellants cite §
28-1-1225, MCA
(1997), regarding the extinguishment of an obligation by the deposit of money offered in payment, for
the proposition that the
power lies with the debtor and not the creditor when it comes to payment.
¶43.The Shilhaneks point out that Title 28, MCA, applies to contracts and other obligations. In addition,
the Shilhaneks
specifically reference § 28-1-103, MCA (1997), which limits the application of Title 28, MCA, to
contractual obligations:
"The rules which govern the interpretation of contracts are prescribed by this title and Title 1."
¶44.The District Court agreed with the Shilhaneks and determined that Title 28, MCA, only applied to
contractual obligations
and noted that rules for interpreting obligations arising from judgments is found in Title 25, MCA. As a
result of the
Appellants' failure to provide the District Court with a basis in the law to allow them to designate
payment in satisfaction of the
punitive damage award, the District Court found compelling reasons not to grant the Appellants' request.
First, the District
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm (19 of 22)3/28/2007 2:26:50 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm
Court noted that there was a complete lack of case law for the proposition that a defendant can dictate
how damages it owes
to a plaintiff are characterized. Second, the District Court observed that in this case, the Appellants owe
more than double the
available insurance coverage and are obligated to pay the policy limits to satisfy the verdict. Finally, the
District Court stated
that it was at a loss as to why it should allocate 22 percent of the available insurance proceeds to the
punitive damage award
given the rather harsh tax consequences such a ruling would have upon the Shilhaneks.
¶45.Based on the Appellants' failure to provide the District Court with a basis in the law to grant their
request and the District
Court's finding of compelling reasons not to grant Appellants' request, it cannot be said that the District
Court acted arbitrarily
without employment of conscientious judgment or exceeded the bounds of reason resulting in substantial
injustice.
Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the
Appellants' request to allocate
money tendered to the Shilhaneks toward the punitive damage award and when it denied the Appellants'
request to require the
Shilhaneks to file a corresponding satisfaction of judgment with respect to the punitive damage award.
ISSUE 4
¶46.Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it allowed Canal to intervene and declared that
Canal shall be treated as
any other party to this action?
¶47.Canal asserts that it filed its motion to intervene for the limited purpose of providing factual
information to correct errors
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm (20 of 22)3/28/2007 2:26:50 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm
of fact regarding Canal made by one of the Shilhaneks' attorneys. The Shilhaneks respond that Canal's
motion was granted,
not denied and therefore, Canal has nothing to appeal. In addition, the Shilhaneks assert that not only is a
trial court allowed to
permit intervention, it may impose conditions on the intervention. Pursuant to Rule 24(b), M.R.Civ.P.,
the District Court
granted Canal's motion to intervene and declared that Canal shall be treated as any other party to the
action.
¶48.Under Rule 24(b), M.R.Civ.P., a trial court has discretion to allow permissive intervention:
Upon timely application anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute confers a
conditional right to
intervene; or (2) when an applicant's claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact
in common. . . . In
exercising its discretion the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice
the adjudication of the
rights of the original parties.
As conceded by Canal, a court may allow intervention with conditions or for a limited purpose. See 6
James Wm. Moore et
al., Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 24.23 (3d ed. 1998). ¶ Here, Canal made its motion to intervene for the
limited purpose
of correcting statements made about it by one of the Shilhaneks' attorneys. The Shilhaneks agreed that
Canal should be
allowed to intervene, but expressed that Canal should be allowed in as a party. Having determined that
Canal had a question
of law or fact in common with the main action and good cause being shown, the District Court allowed
Canal to intervene as a
party pursuant to Rule 24(b), M.R.Civ.P.
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm (21 of 22)3/28/2007 2:26:50 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm
¶39.We will not substitute our judgment for the district court's unless it clearly abused its discretion. See
Jarvenpaa, ¶ 13.
We cannot say that the District Court's ruling allowing Canal to intervene as a party was an abuse of
discretion. The District
Court found that Canal's motion to intervene met the criteria necessary for permissive intervention under
Rule 24(b),
M.R.Civ.P., and conditioned Canal's intervention in the action on Canal being treated as any other party.
Consequently, we
conclude that the District did not abuse its discretion when it granted Canal's motion to intervene and
conditioned the
intervention on Canal being treated as a party to the action.
¶40.Affirmed.
/S/ JIM REGNIER
We Concur:
/S/ J. A. TURNAGE
/S/ WILLIAM E. HUNT, SR.
/S/ TERRY N. TRIEWEILER
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-191_(01-20-00)_Opinion.htm (22 of 22)3/28/2007 2:26:50 PM