## Facts

- Kiersten Rich had automobile-insurance coverage with State Farm and was involved in two motor-vehicle accidents (1993 and 1994).
- Rich hired attorney Jeffrey Ellingson to seek uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits and to pursue unfair trade practices (UTPA/bad-faith) claims against State Farm arising from the insurer’s handling of her claims.
- Ellingson filed a Montana state-court complaint seeking UIM benefits. A summons was issued but was never served on State Farm.
- The state UIM action was later voluntarily dismissed without prejudice due to lack of timely service of summons.
- Ellingson filed a federal action against State Farm asserting, among other things, breach of contract and UTPA violations for failure to pay benefits.
- The federal court granted State Farm partial summary judgment on the UIM-benefits claim, reasoning that Rich’s failure to comply with the state-court procedural requirements prevented her from obtaining the same relief in federal court.
- Rich filed a first legal-malpractice action in Montana state court against Ellingson and his malpractice insurer, Attorney’s Liability Protection Society (ALPS), alleging malpractice tied to the loss of her UIM claim.
- Rich settled the first malpractice case and signed a “Limited General Release” releasing Ellingson and ALPS from “any and all claims … known or unknown, foreseen or unforeseen, anticipated or unanticipated,” that “have resulted or may in the future develop” from Ellingson’s alleged malpractice in his representation of Rich against State Farm.
- After the settlement, Rich’s remaining federal UTPA/bad-faith claims against State Farm were dismissed as time-barred.
- Rich then filed a second legal-malpractice action against Ellingson and ALPS, alleging Ellingson committed additional malpractice by allowing her UTPA/bad-faith claims to become barred by the statute of limitations.
- Ellingson and ALPS moved for summary judgment, arguing the Release barred the second malpractice action; the parties agreed there were no material fact disputes and that the case turned on the Release’s legal effect.

## Issues

1. Does a settlement release that discharges “any and all” malpractice claims—“known or unknown” and that “may in the future develop”—arising from an attorney’s representation of a client against a particular insurer bar a later malpractice suit based on additional, later-discovered errors from that same representation?

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Ellingson and ALPS.
- The Court held the Limited General Release was clear and unambiguous and barred Rich’s second malpractice action.
- The Court rejected Rich’s argument that the Release was meant to cover only the malpractice claim she had already asserted (the UIM summons/service problem) and not later-discovered malpractice relating to the UTPA claims.
- Because the parties stipulated there were no material factual disputes and the Release’s language covered future and unknown claims arising from Ellingson’s representation against State Farm, the Release controlled as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- A release is interpreted as a contract; if its language is clear and unambiguous, courts enforce it as written.
- A release that expressly discharges “any and all” claims, including those “known or unknown” and that “may in the future develop,” can bar later-filed claims within the scope of the release, even if the plaintiff did not know of them when signing.
- When a release unambiguously assigns the risk of later-discovered claims to the releasing party, courts will not rely on a party’s asserted intent or subjective understanding to narrow the release.
- Absent ambiguity or a valid basis to avoid the contract, courts do not rewrite a settlement release based on arguments that the settlement payment was too small to cover all possible future claims.
- Summary judgment is proper when the controlling question is the legal effect of an unambiguous written release and there are no material fact disputes.

## Conclusion

The Montana Supreme Court enforced Rich’s Limited General Release because its plain language discharged Ellingson and ALPS from all malpractice claims—present or future, known or unknown—arising from Ellingson’s representation of Rich against State Farm, which included the later-alleged negligence related to her time-barred UTPA/bad-faith claims.


Rich v. Ellingson, 174 P.3d 491 (2007)