## Facts

- Alan and Sharon Wamsley, North Dakota residents, carried three separate Nodak automobile policies, each providing underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage on a different vehicle.
- In 2002, while traveling on Interstate 90 near Bozeman, Montana, their minivan was struck when an intoxicated Montana driver crossed the median; both Wamsleys and the other driver died.
- The Estate recovered the tortfeasor’s liability limits but alleged it remained undercompensated and sought UIM benefits from Nodak.
- The Estate demanded that Nodak allow “stacking” of the UIM limits across all three policies; Nodak paid only the UIM limits for the vehicle involved in the accident and denied any further obligation.
- Nodak contended North Dakota law controlled and barred stacking; the Estate argued Montana law applied and permitted stacking.
- While the dispute was pending, Montana’s anti-stacking statute was invalidated in separate litigation, and the Estate renewed its demand for stacked UIM benefits.
- Parallel proceedings occurred: the Estate sued in Montana for UIM benefits, while Nodak pursued a declaratory judgment action in North Dakota seeking a ruling that North Dakota law applied and stacking was not required.

## Issues

1. Whether Montana or North Dakota law governed stacking of UIM coverages under Nodak’s policies for a fatal accident occurring in Montana.
2. Whether the Montana court was required, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause or comity, to follow a North Dakota judgment applying North Dakota law and denying stacking.
3. Whether the Montana district court abused its discretion by denying a stay of the Montana action pending resolution of the North Dakota action and by granting summary judgment to the Estate on stacking.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the Montana district court’s judgment for the Estate.
- Montana law governed the stacking question, and the Estate was entitled to stack the three UIM policies.
- Full faith and credit did not require Montana courts to treat the North Dakota declaratory judgment as controlling on Montana’s choice-of-law determination in the Montana action.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Nodak’s motion to stay and did not err in its summary judgment and reconsideration rulings.

## Legal Principles

- In an insurance coverage dispute with multi-state contacts, Montana applies its conflict-of-laws rules and may apply Montana law where Montana has significant interests, including regulation of compensation and insurance consequences for accidents on Montana highways.
- Under Montana law, absent a valid statutory or enforceable contractual prohibition, UIM coverages may be stacked when separate premiums were paid for separate coverages or policies.
- Full faith and credit requires recognition of sister-state final judgments within their proper scope, but it does not compel a Montana court to surrender jurisdiction or adopt another state’s choice-of-law determination merely because a parallel declaratory action was filed elsewhere.
- Comity is discretionary and does not override Montana’s conflict-of-laws analysis or Montana public policy where Montana properly exercises jurisdiction.

## Conclusion

The Montana Supreme Court held that Montana law applied to UIM stacking arising from a fatal Montana accident and affirmed a judgment allowing the Estate to recover stacked UIM benefits; it also held that Montana was not constitutionally required to defer to a contrary North Dakota decision and upheld the district court’s refusal to stay the Montana action.


Wamsley v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 178 P.3d 102 (Mont. 2008)