Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-221

Section 27-1-221(5) requires punitive damages to be proved by clear and convincing evidence, but that requirement does not automatically govern exemplary damages under Montana's trade secrets statute.

Yeti By Molly Ltd v. Deckers Outdoor Corporation · filed 2001-08-08(5)

We conclude that the Montana legislature did not incorporate the definition of punitive damages into the trade secrets act. First, under §§ 27-1-221(5), general punitive damages must be proved "by clear and convincing evidence. " Nothing in the MUTSA suggests that exemplary damages and attorneys' fees need to be proved by clear and convincing evidence. By deferring to the jury, the district court implicitly imported not only the substantive definition of"actual malice," but also the heightened quantum of proof requirement. This was legal error.

Section 27-1-221 permits punitive damages when a defendant knows of or intentionally disregards facts creating a high probability of injury and deliberately acts with conscious or intentional disregard, or indifference, to that probability.

Kerley v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation · filed 2023-12-13

These factual allegations, perhaps meager, in concert with the rest of the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint, prove sufficient to support a claim that “defendant ha[d] knowledge of facts or intentionally disregard[ed] facts that create[d] a high probability of injury to the plaintiff and: (a) deliberately proceed[ed] to act in conscious or intentional disregard of the high probability of injury to the plaintiff; or (b) deliberately proceed[ed] to act with indifference to the high probability of injury to the plaintiff.” Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-221.

A punitive-damages claim fails when the plaintiff does not present clear and convincing evidence of actual fraud or actual malice.

English v. BNSF Railway Company · filed 2021-03-09

The Court finds that English failed to present clear and convincing evidence that BNSF engaged in conduct that would rise to the level of “actual fraud,” “actual malice,” or that BNSF supervisors and employees made a “representation with knowledge of its falsity” or “conceal[ed] a material fact.”

Section 27-1-221(2) defines actual malice for punitive damages, and subsection (6) requires every punitive-damages element to be proved by clear and convincing evidence.

Fachner v. Safeco Insurance Company of America · filed 2025-07-21(2), (6)

A defendant is guilty of actual malice if the defendant has knowledge of facts or intentionally disregards facts that create a high probability of injury to the plaintiff and: ... (a) deliberately proceeds to act in conscious or intentional disregard of the high probability of injury to the plaintiff; or (b) deliberately proceeds to act with indifference to the high probability of injury to the plaintiff. ... Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-221(6) (“All elements of the claim for punitive damages must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.”).

Section 27-1-221(4) permits evidence of a defendant’s net worth to be considered in awarding punitive damages, but bars presenting that evidence to the jury until a prima facie punitive-damages case is established.

Marsillo v. National Surety Corp. · filed 1986-11-07(4)

Under applicable Montana law, evidence of a defendant’s net worth may be considered for an award of punitive damages, although such evidence may not be presented to a jury until a prima facie case for punitive damages has been established. Mont.Code Ann. § 27-1-221(4).

Section 27-1-221(7)(a) bars financial-condition evidence when deciding liability for punitive damages but requires it to be considered in the separate proceeding that sets the amount.

Seltzer v. Morton · filed 2007-03-12(7)(a)

We see nothing in Campbell that invalidates § 27-1-221(7)(a), MCA. The California Supreme Court has reached the same conclusion, determining that subsequent to the Campbell decision “the defendant’s financial condition remains a legitimate consideration in setting punitive damages.” Simon, 113 P.3d at 79 (citing Campbell, 538 U.S. at 427-28, 123 S.Ct. at 1525, for its statement that consideration of a defendant’s wealth is not unlawful or inappropriate). Accordingly, we reject the Defendants’ argument and hold that the District Court did not err by admitting evidence of the Defendants’ financial condition during the punitive damages proceedings and instructing the jury to consider that evidence in determining the amount of punitive damages.

Section 27-1-221(7)(a) bars evidence of a defendant’s financial affairs, financial condition, and net worth when deciding liability for punitive damages, but requires considering it when setting the amount after liability is found.

Cranska v. UMIA Insurance, Inc. · filed 2024-01-10(7)(a)

Evidence regarding a defendant’s financial affairs, financial condition, and net worth is not admissible in a trial to determine whether a defendant is liable for punitive damages. When the jury returns a verdict finding a defendant liable for punitive damages, the amount of punitive damages must then be determined by the jury in an immediate, separate proceeding and be submitted to the judge for review . . . . In the separate proceeding to determine the amount of punitive damages to be awarded, the defendant’s financial affairs, financial condition, and net worth must be considered. Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-221(7)(a) (2021) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants’ motion with the caveat that this evidence will be admissible to determine the appropriate amount of punitive damages, should the jury find any of the Defendants liable for punitive damages.

Section 27-1-221(7) governs the admissibility of financial evidence at trial and does not determine whether the information is discoverable before trial.

Corporate Air v. Edwards Jet Center · filed 2008-08-12(7)

Yet, § 27-1-221(7), MCA, speaks to the admissibility of financial evidence at trial. It does not speak to whether such information is discoverable pretrial.

Section 27-1-221 makes evidence of a party’s financial condition relevant and admissible on punitive damages only after a prima facie showing that punitive damages are appropriate, but it does not bar pretrial discovery of that financial information when punitive damages are claimed.

Baker v. CNA Insurance · filed 1988-07-15

The court is acutely aware of the rule of law that any evidence of the financial condition of a party is only relevant to the issue of punitive damages, and that such evidence is admissible only after the adverse party has established a prima facie case that punitive damages are appropriate. MontCode Ann. § 27-1-221 (1987). CNA’s reliance on that rule of law in the present context is misplaced. The issue presented concerns the pretrial discoverability of information relating to a party’s financial status, not its admissibility. ... Where a claim for punitive damages is made, however, a party’s financial status is relevant to the subject matter of the action and thus a proper subject of pretrial discovery.

Section 27-1-221 allows punitive damages only when the defendant has been found guilty of actual fraud or actual malice.

Meyer v. Big Sky Resort · filed 2020-06-10

Montana law only allows punitive damages when a defendant has been found guilty of actual fraud or actual malice. ... For this reason, the Court grants Big Sky’s motion for summary judgment on punitive damages as Meyer cannot show actual malice under these circumstances. Mont. Code. Ann. § 27-1-221.

Subsection (1) authorizes punitive damages only when the defendant has been found guilty of actual fraud or actual malice.

Guinnane v. Dobbins · filed 2020-08-13(1)

Punitive damages are authorized only “when the defendant has been found guilty of actual fraud or actual malice.” Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-221(1). “[A] defendant is guilty of actual malice if the defendant has knowledge of facts or intentionally disregards facts that create a high probability of injury to the plaintiff.” § 27-1-221(2). At trial, Plaintiffs have the burden to prove “actual malice” by clear and convincing evidence. § 27-1-221(5). But at this stage, Plaintiffs need only raise a genuine dispute of fact. They do so here.

Section 27-1-221 defines actual malice and actual fraud as grounds for punitive damages and requires all elements of a punitive-damages claim to be proved by clear and convincing evidence, with the sufficiency of that evidence generally left to the jury.

Byorth v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company · filed 2020-09-02(2), (3), (5)

Montana law allows a party to recover punitive damages when a defendant has committed actual fraud or actual malice. Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-221. ... Because of the subjectivity and fact intensive issues involved in proving punitive damages, the determination of whether punitive damages are warranted is typically left to the jury. Courts should therefore deny summary judgment if a reasonable juror could determine clear and convincing evidence exists in the record to support a finding of actual fraud or actual malice. ... Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-221(5) (“All elements of the claim for punitive damages must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.”). ... A defendant is guilty of actual malice if the defendant has knowledge of facts or intentionally disregards facts that create a high probability of injury to the plaintiff and: ... (a) deliberately proceeds to act in conscious or intentional disregard of the high probability of injury to the plaintiff; or ... (b) deliberately proceeds to act with indifference to the high probability of injury to the plaintiff. ... The statute additionally provides that a “defendant is guilty of actual fraud if the defendant (a) makes a representation with knowledge of its falsity; or (b) conceals a material fact with the purpose of depriving the plaintiff of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.” ... The Court instead must determine if Byorth has presented evidence of actual malice or fraud which a reasonable jury could find sufficiently clear and convincing to establish liability. ... Based on the evidence in the record, the Court finds there is sufficient evidence to allow the jury to determine whether Byorth should be awarded punitive damages. ... The Court therefore finds Byorth’s claim for punitive damages may proceed under an actual malice and/or actual fraud theory.

Section 27-1-221(1) permits punitive damages when clear and convincing evidence shows that the defendant acted with actual malice.

The Estate of Melanie DeCrane v. Tenke · filed 2022-12-19(1)

Punitive damages are permitted if clear and convincing evidence shows the defendant acted with actual malice. Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-221(1). ... Based on the express language statute and the Court’s refusal to determine the degree of negligence of each party, with which an award of punitive damages would be intrinsically tied, the Court denies summary judgment on this issue.

Section 27-1-221 permits a jury to award punitive damages when the defendant acted with actual fraud or actual malice.

Dalbotten v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2023-02-07

A jury may award punitive damages when a defendant has acted with actual fraud or actual malice. Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-221. The defendant’s state of mind represents a key element in determining whether a defendant acted with actual fraud or actual malice.

Section 27-1-221 requires clear and convincing proof that the defendant acted with actual fraud or malice to recover punitive damages.

Cranska v. UMIA Insurance, Inc. · filed 2024-01-02

To recover punitive damages, a plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that an insurer acted with “actual fraud or malice.” Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-221 (2021).

Section 27-1-221 permits a punitive-damages claim to reach the jury when the record could support clear and convincing proof of actual fraud or actual malice.

McKean v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company · filed 2020-09-02(2), (3), (5)

Montana law allows a party to recover punitive damages when a defendant has committed actual fraud or actual malice.

In a malicious-prosecution action, subsection (2)'s definition of actual malice supplies a Montana malice standard, and evidence that the defendant knowingly or intentionally disregarded a high probability of injury can support the jury's finding.

McCollough v. Johnson, Rodenburg & Lauinger, LLC · filed 2011-03-04(2)

A defendant is guilty of actual malice if the defendant has knowledge of facts or intentionally disregards facts that create a high probability of injury to the plaintiff and: (a) deliberately proceeds to act in conscious or intentional disregard of the high probability of injury to the plaintiff; or (b) deliberately proceeds to act with indifference to the high probability of injury to the plaintiff.

Section 27-1-221 permits punitive damages only for actual fraud or actual malice and requires clear and convincing proof of every element.

Christiaens v. Crossroads Correctional Center · filed 2024-04-24(2), (3), (4), and (6)

Montana law permits the award of punitive damages only when a defendant committed “actual fraud” or “actual malice.” Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-221; Romo v. Shirley, 522 P.3d 401, 413 (Mont. 2022). Actual fraud exists when 1) either a defendant “makes a representation with knowledge of its falsity” or “conceals a material fact with the purpose of depriving the plaintiff of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury”; 2) a “plaintiff has a right to rely on the representation of [a] defendant”; 3) a plaintiff relies on the representation; and 4) the plaintiff’s reliance causes the plaintiff injury. Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-221(3), (4). Actual malice exists when a defendant knows of or “intentionally disregards facts that create a high probability of injury to the plaintiff” and deliberately acts either “in conscious or intentional disregard of” or “with indifference to the high probability of injury to the plaintiff.” Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-221(2). All elements of a punitive damages claim “must be proved by clear and convincing evidence[, meaning] evidence in which there is no serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn from the evidence.” Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-221(6).

Subsection (2) defines actual malice through knowledge or intentional disregard of facts creating a high probability of injury, plus deliberate conscious disregard or indifference to that risk.

Bilbruck v. Valley County · filed 2024-07-02(2)

A reasonable jury could find that Valley County had knowledge of Strommen’s sexual conduct and inappropriate contact with young girls based on the testimony of Sheriff Meier and Bilbruck’s testimony regarding the circumstances surrounding the sexual encounters.

Subsection (2) defines actual malice, and subsection (3) defines actual fraud, as grounds for recovering punitive damages.

UMIA Insurance, Inc. v. Arguelles · filed 2025-01-21(2), (3)

Under Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-221(2), a defendant is guilty of actual malice if “the defendant has knowledge of facts or intentionally disregards facts that create a high probability of injury to the plaintiff and: (a) deliberately proceeds to act in conscious or intentional disregard of the high probability of injury to the plaintiff; or (b) deliberately proceeds to act with indifference to the high probability of injury to the plaintiff.” Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-221(2.) The statue further provides that a defendant is guilty of actual fraud “if the defendant: (a) makes a representation with knowledge of its falsity; or (b) conceals a material fact with the purpose of depriving the plaintiff of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.” Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-221(3).

Section 27-1-221 permits punitive damages in a contract claim when the factfinder finds the defendant guilty of actual fraud or actual malice.

Anderson v. Boyne USA, Inc. · filed 2025-01-31

Montana law permits the award of punitive damages in contract claims if the factfinder finds the defendant “guilty of actual fraud or actual malice.” Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-221; see also Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-220 (when punitive damages are allowed).

Section 27-1-221(2) permits punitive damages when the defendant acts with actual malice, meaning the defendant knows facts or intentionally disregards facts creating a high probability of injury and proceeds with indifference or disregard.

Duffy v. Kaman Aerospace Corporation · filed 2025-04-03(2)

Montana law allows an award of punitive damages where a defendant acts with actual malice. Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-221(2). “Actual malice occurs when a defendant has knowledge of facts or intentionally disregards facts that create a high probability of injury to the plaintiff and then proceeds to act with indifference or disregard of the high probability of injury.” Hagen v. Dow Chem. Co, 863 P.2d 413, 420 (Mont. 1993). Such an inquiry often proves factually intensive and should be left to the fact finder.

Section 27-1-221(2) defines actual malice for punitive damages as knowing or intentionally disregarding facts creating a high probability of injury, together with conscious or intentional disregard of, or indifference to, that probability.

Stovern · filed 2025-12-02(2)

The standard of “actual malice” requires a plaintiff to present evidence that a defendant had “knowledge of facts or intentionally disregard[ed] facts that create[d] a high probability of injury to the plaintiff” and either acted “in conscious or intentional disregard of the high probability of injury to the plaintiff” or acted “with indifference to the high probability of injury to the plaintiff.” Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-221(2).

Section 27-1-221 permits punitive damages only when clear and convincing evidence shows that the defendant acted with actual fraud or actual malice.

Rodgers · filed 2026-01-23(1) and (4)

Punitive damages are available upon a showing by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant acted with actual fraud or malice. Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-221(1) and (4). Actual malice requires proof that “the defendant has knowledge of facts or intentionally disregards facts that create a high probability of injury to the plaintiff and (a) deliberately proceeds to act in conscious or intentional disregard of the high probability of injury to the plaintiff or (b) deliberately proceeds to act with indifference to the high probability of injury to the plaintiff.” Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-122(2)(a)-(b). Strommen’s plea colloquy does not undisputedly establish that Strommen acted with actual malice.

Section 27-1-221(1) permits punitive damages when the defendant is found guilty of actual malice, meaning knowing or intentional disregard of facts creating a high probability of injury, with deliberate conscious disregard or indifference to that risk.

Doran v. Smith · filed 2019-11-07(1)

Punitive damages may be awarded when the defendant has been found guilty of actual malice. Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-221(1). Actual malice means the defendant has knowledge of facts or intentionally disregards facts that create a high probability of injury to the plaintiff and (1) deliberately proceeds to act in conscious or intentional disregard of the high probability of injury to the plaintiff; or (2) deliberately proceeds to act with indifference to the high probability of injury to the plaintiff. Whether Smith’s allegedly false assertion Doran started the fire to collect insurance money, and had done so in the past, amounts to actual malice is a question of fact for the jury to decide. Summary judgment is denied as to punitive damages.

Section 27-1-221 permits punitive damages when a defendant is found guilty of actual fraud or actual malice, defining those terms through knowing falsity or concealment and conscious disregard of a high probability of harm.

Stevenson v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company · filed 2025-08-13(1), (2), and (3)

Under Montana law, punitive damages may be awarded “when the defendant has been found guilty of actual fraud or actual malice.” Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-221(1). “A defendant is guilty of actual malice if the defendant has knowledge of facts or intentionally disregards facts that create a high probability of harm to the plaintiff and: (a) deliberately proceeds to act in conscious or intentional disregard of the high probability of injury to the plaintiff; or (b) deliberately proceeds to act with indifference to the high probability of injury to the plaintiff.” Mont. Code Ann. § 27- 1-221(2). “A defendant is guilty of actual fraud if the defendant: (a) makes a representation with knowledge of its falsity; or (b) conceals a material fact with the purpose of depriving the plaintiff of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.” Id. § 27-1-221(3). Here, Plaintiffs allege that Gardner Defendants deliberately acted with conscious disregard of the high probability of financial injury to Plaintiffs, by ignoring Plaintiffs’ financial goals and risk aversion and instead selling them on volatile high-risk financial products that were unsuitable for Plaintiffs’ needs. ... Taking these allegations as true, the Court finds it plausible that Plaintiffs could prove actual malice and actual fraud.

Section 27-1-221 requires clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiff suffered injury through the defendant's oppression, fraud, or actual or presumed malice to maintain a punitive-damages claim.

Cook v. Principal Mutual Life Insurance · filed 1990-03-21

In order to maintain a claim for punitive damages, a Plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Plaintiffs suffered injury to their persons or property through the oppression, fraud, or actual or presumed malice of Defendant. Mont.Code Ann. § 27-1-221 (1985). Clear and convincing evidence means evidence in which there is no serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn from the evidence.

Section 27-1-221 permits punitive damages only when the defendant is guilty of actual fraud or actual malice; for an agent’s conduct, the court applied a rule requiring culpable conduct by the principal before imposing punitive damages.

Shupak v. New York Life Insurance · filed 1991-03-05

Each of the subsections of § 909 require conduct on the part of the principal which contributed to or condoned the agent’s commission of the wrong, and for which punishment or deterrence may justifiably be sought. ... While the Montana Supreme Court has not yet adopted that section, it is harmonious with the above-stated purpose of punitive damages in Montana, and consistent with the language of the punitive damage statute, which allows an award of punitive damages where “the defendant has been guilty of actual fraud or actual malice.” Mont.Code Ann. § 27-1-221 (emphasis added). At the same time, this standard appropriately precludes the imposition of punitive damages upon an innocent principal who is ignorant of its agent’s wrongdoing. This Court believes that the Montana Supreme Court would follow the recent trend by adopting the standards set forth in § 909.

Section 27-1-221 permits punitive damages upon clear and convincing proof that the defendant acted with actual fraud or actual malice.

Ray v. Washington National Insurance · filed 1999-04-21(2), (3), (5)

Punitive damages may be awarded in an action for violation of subsections (1), (4) and (5) of § 33-18-201, if the requirements prescribed in Mont.Code Ann. § 27-1-221 are satisfied. See Mont.Code Ann. § 33-18-242(4). Section 27-1-221 permits an award of punitive damages when a defendant has been found guilty of actual fraud or actual malice. Section 27-1-221 defines “actual fraud” and “actual malice” as follows: (2) A defendant is guilty of actual malice if he has knowledge of facts or intentionally disregards facts that create a high probability of injury to the plaintiff and: (a) deliberately proceeds to act in conscious or intentional disregard of the high probability of injury to the plaintiff; or (b) deliberately proceeds to act with indifference to the high probability of injury to the plaintiff. (3) A defendant is guilty of actual fraud if he: (a) makes a representation with knowledge of its falsity; or (b) conceals a material fact with the purpose of depriving the plaintiff of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury. Mont.Code Ann. §§ 27-1-221(2),(3). A plaintiff must prove all elements of a claim for punitive damages by “clear and convincing evidence,” which is “evidence in which there is no serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn from the evidence. It is more than a preponderance of evidence but less than beyond a reasonable doubt.” See, Mont.Code Ann. § 27-1-221(5). In the present case, Ray contends Washington National’s initial refusal to pay Morgan’s medical expenses was a deliberate attempt to deprive Ray of monies he was entitled to receive under the Washington National policy. Washington National, on the other hand, characterizes the delay in payment of Morgan’s medical expenses as the product of confusion and honest mistakes. The court concludes that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether Washington National acted with actual fraud or actual malice. Therefore, Washington National’s motion for partial summary judgment challenging Ray’s entitlement to punitive damages is denied.

Section 27-1-221 governs exemplary damages available under § 33-18-242(4), but its permissive language does not make punitive damages automatic; the claimant must show actual fraud or actual malice.

Burgett v. Safeco National Insurance · filed 2003-08-15(1)-(2)(b)

Burgett seeks punitive damages based on Safeco’s alleged violation of § 33-18-201(6) and (13). We agree that under § 33-18-242(4) the court or jury may award exemplary damages in accord with § 27-1-221. See Mont.Code Ann. § 33-18-242(4) (emphasis added). The permissive language of the statute does not require an award of punitive damages in all cases where a violation is established.3 Upon examination of the record we fail to find sufficient evidence of actual fraud or actual malice. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages.

Section 27-1-221(1) requires proof of actual malice or actual fraud before punitive damages may be awarded.

Groves v. Greyhound Lines Inc. · filed 2003-10-17(1)

Groves also appeals the district court’s punitive damages rulings. Groves, however, failed to demonstrate that the defendant acted with malice. Mont.Code Ann. § 27-1-221(1). Groves did not present any evidence to suggest, as a threshold matter, that there was a high probability that intoxicated passengers would injure other passengers, nor did he demonstrate that Greyhound knew that its procedure for dealing with disorderly or intoxicated passengers was inadequate. Therefore, it was not error for the district court to grant Greyhound’s Rule 50 motion on the issue of punitive damages, nor did the district court abuse its discretion in limiting voir dire on this issue.

Section 27-1-221 requires factual findings on the statutory punitive-damages factors and actual malice before punitive damages may be awarded.

Snavely v. Miller · filed 2005-02-07(7)(b), (1)

In its order, the bankruptcy court made adequate factual findings on the factors required by Mont.Code Ann. § 27-1-221(7)(b). The bankruptcy court made specific findings on the actual damages Mr. Miller suffered and on Ms. Snavely’s worth, which it found to be $3,685,521. The record supports the bankruptcy court’s findings that Mr. Miller is entitled to an award of punitive damages under the relevant factors of § 27-1-221(7)(B) and that Ms. Snavely acted with actual malice. See Mont.Code Ann. § 27-1-221(1); Rasmussen v. Fowler, 245 Mont. 308, 800 P.2d 1053, 1056-57 (1990) (court concluded that actual malice for purposes of an award of punitive damages is present where a party blocks access to property after being told that access was to remain open).

Section 27-1-221(1) requires a finding that the defendant is guilty of actual malice before punitive damages may be awarded.

McCollough v. Johnson, Rodenberg & Lauinger · filed 2009-07-27(1)

For a punitive damages claim, a defendant must be found guilty of actual malice. Mont.Code Ann. § 27-1-221(1)(2007). A defendant is guilty of actual malice if the defendant has knowledge of facts or intentionally disregards facts that create a high probability of injury to the plaintiff and: (a) deliberately proceeds to act in conscious or intentional disregard of the high probability of injury to the plaintiff; or (b) deliberately proceeds to act with indifference to the high probability of injury to the plaintiff.

Section 27-1-221 requires a punitive-damages claimant to prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence, defining it through knowledge or intentional disregard of facts creating a high probability of injury plus specified deliberate conduct.

Peschel v. City of Missoula · filed 2009-10-15(2)

To sustain his claim for punitive damages, Peschel must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the officers acted with actual malice. Mont.Code Ann. § 27-1-221. Montana Code Annotated § 27-1-221(2) provides: (2) A defendant is guilty of actual malice if the defendant has knowledge of facts or intentionally disregards facts that create a high probability of injury to the plaintiff and: (a) deliberately proceeds to act in conscious or intentional disregard of the high probability of injury to the plaintiff; or (b) deliberately proceeds to act with indifference to the high probability of injury to the plaintiff.

Section 27-1-221(7)(b) requires the court to consider the listed factors when determining the amount of punitive damages.

Adams v. Roberts · filed 2021-05-18(7)(b)(i), (7)(b)(iii), (7)(b)(v), (7)(b)(vi), (7)(b)(vii), (7)(b)(viii)

After considering each factor enumerated in § 27-1-221(7)(b), IT IS ORDERED that the Jury’s punitive damages award of $750,000 is AFFIRMED.

Subsection (2) defines malice to include knowingly or intentionally disregarding facts creating a high probability of injury and deliberately acting with indifference to that risk.

McGowen Precision Barrels, LLC v. Proof Research, Inc. · filed 2022-10-28(2)

Malice includes when a defendant “has knowledge of facts or intentionally disregards facts that create a high probability of injury to the plaintiff and . . . deliberately proceeds to act with indifference to the high probability of injury to the plaintiff.” Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-221(2).

After a defendant is found liable for punitive damages, subsection (7)(a) requires the jury to determine the amount in a separate proceeding.

Dalbotten v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2023-01-20(7)(a)

Should the jury determine that punitive damages are appropriate, the determination of those damages shall be bifurcated, and Montana’s statutory punitive damages cap shall apply.

Section 27-1-221(2) requires actual malice or actual fraud for punitive damages but does not create an independent claim for actual malice.

Lets Get Moving v. Lagestic · filed 2023-11-22(2)

The Court finds no grounds for construing actual malice as an independent cause of action given the Montana Supreme Court’s interpretation in Thornton, albeit an unpublished opinion.

Subsection (6) places the propriety of a punitive-damages award with the trier of fact, with the award assessed based on the circumstances of the particular case.

Campbell v. ACandS, Inc. · filed 1989-01-18(6)

The propriety of an award of punitive damages is an issue to be determined by the trier of fact.

Subsection (6) requires the trier of fact, whether judge or jury, to determine liability for punitive damages.

Livingston v. Isuzu Motors, Ltd. · filed 1995-12-22(6)

Liability for punitive damages must be determined by the trier of fact, whether judge or jury.

Section 27-1-221(5) bars including a request for punitive damages in an initial pleading but permits a later motion to amend after discovery begins.

King v. Health Care Services Corp. · filed 2024-07-15(5)

The Court must dismiss the punitive damages claim in accordance with Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-221(5). King may file to amend the pleading for punitive damages after discovery begins.

Subsection (5)'s prohibition on pleading punitive damages in an initial complaint is procedural and yields to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(3) in diversity litigation.

Dzintars v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company · filed 2024-09-30(5)

Rule 8(a)(3) accordingly governs and Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-221(5) does not bar Plaintiffs’ claim.

Actual malice under subsection (2) is not an independent cause of action; it is a derivative basis for seeking punitive damages alongside an underlying tort claim.

The Aliera Companies Inc. · filed 2025-07-24(2)

Count XIII for Malice is not an independent cause of action but rather allows plaintiffs to seek punitive damages by asserting that the underlying tortious conduct involved actual malice under Montana Code § 27-1-221.