Under Montana’s comparative negligence rule, a claimant may recover compensation as long as their own fault is not greater than the combined negligence of the other parties involved, but the final award gets reduced by the claimant’s own percentage of fault. Understanding exactly how this math works, and how insurers try to shift fault onto you, can make a real difference in the value of your settlement.
At Conner, Marr & Pinski, our car accident attorneys have represented injured Montanans since 1974, and we know how to challenge an insurer’s fault allocation when it doesn’t reflect what actually happened. If you’re negotiating a car accident settlement in Montana and fault is being disputed, call (406) 727-3550 to talk with our team.
The Montana Rule in One Plain-Language Example
Consider a hypothetical claimant with $100,000 in total damages from a crash. This example is purely illustrative and isn’t a promise about the value of any actual case.
- At 0% fault, the claimant would be entitled to the full $100,000
- At 20% fault, the award would be reduced to $80,000
- At 50% fault, the award would be reduced to $50,000
- At 51% fault, under Montana’s current comparative negligence framework, the claimant generally would not be entitled to recover at all
This example shows just how much a fault percentage can affect the final settlement number, and why fighting for an accurate percentage matters so much.
Why a Settlement Offer Depends on Two Different Numbers
A settlement offer generally depends on two separate figures: your total damages and your percentage of legal responsibility for the crash. Insurers frequently dispute both numbers, sometimes minimizing your damages while also trying to shift a larger share of fault onto you, which can compound to significantly lower an offer.
Fault Percentage Changes the Recoverable Amount
Once your total damages are established, your fault percentage is applied to reduce that amount under Montana’s comparative negligence rule, as reflected in MCA 27-1-702. It’s worth noting that this reduction is a separate issue from other factors that can affect what you actually collect, such as liens against your settlement, applicable policy limits, or questions about whether a defendant can actually pay a judgment.
Crossing the Recovery Threshold Changes Everything
Because Montana’s rule includes a specific threshold for recovery, even a single percentage point can make the difference between recovering a reduced amount and recovering nothing at all. This makes disputes over fault percentages near that threshold especially significant, and it’s an area where current law should be reviewed carefully for your specific situation.
How Insurers Try to Put Part of the Crash on You
Insurance adjusters often look for ways to shift some percentage of fault onto an injured claimant, using arguments involving your speed, claimed distraction, following distance, visibility conditions, whether you were wearing a seat belt, any delay in seeking treatment, statements you made after the crash, or even your social media activity.
None of these arguments are automatically proof of fault; they’re accusations that still need to be weighed against the actual evidence in your case.
Evidence That Can Move the Fault Percentage
Evidence that can help establish an accurate fault percentage includes:
- Photographs of the accident scene
- Video footage from nearby cameras or dashcams
- Event data recorder information from the vehicles involved
- Cell phone records
- Witness accounts
- Vehicle damage patterns
- The timing of medical treatment following the crash
- Expert analysis of how the crash occurred
- Consistent testimony from everyone involved
Police Citations Matter, but They Do Not Set Civil Fault
A traffic citation issued at the scene is one piece of evidence, but it doesn’t automatically determine civil fault in a later insurance negotiation or lawsuit.
The officer’s citation decision, the crash report, an insurance company’s internal fault assessment, settlement negotiations, and a civil fact finder’s ultimate determination all serve different purposes and can reach different conclusions based on the same underlying facts.
What Changes When Several People Share Responsibility
When more than one party may share responsibility for a crash, such as multiple drivers, an employer, a vehicle owner, or another already-settled party, Montana law under MCA 27-1-703 addresses how fault gets allocated among these parties.
This can significantly affect both your total recovery and which party or parties are actually responsible for paying it.
Negotiating a Settlement When Fault Is Contested
When fault is disputed, a strong settlement negotiation generally depends on presenting clear evidence supporting your version of events, thorough documentation of your damages, an understanding of the applicable insurance policy limits, careful review of any release before signing it, and, when necessary, mediation or continued litigation.
Don’t simply accept an insurer’s proposed fault percentage without testing it against the actual evidence in your case, since that percentage often reflects negotiating position rather than an objective conclusion.
Let Conner, Marr & Pinski Challenge an Unfair Fault Split
Conner, Marr & Pinski can help you receive the justice you deserve. Since 1974, our attorneys have represented injured Montanans, farmers and ranchers, and small business owners in complex trials, recovering millions of dollars for our clients along the way. We’ve represented clients against some of the largest companies in the world, and we’ve appeared before the United States Supreme Court and courts across the country.
That experience means we know exactly how insurers build a fault argument, and how to take it apart with evidence rather than accepting an unfair percentage at face value. Whether your case involves a rear-end collision, a pedestrian accident, or another type of Montana car accident, our Kalispell car accident and Kalispell personal injury team is ready to review your evidence and challenge an inaccurate fault split.
Request a free accident consultation with Conner, Marr & Pinski at (406) 727-3550 today.
Montana Comparative-Fault Settlement Questions
Can I recover if I was 50% at fault for a Montana crash?
Potentially, yes. Under Montana’s comparative negligence rule, a claimant may generally recover when their fault is not greater than the combined negligence of the other parties involved, though the award is reduced by their own percentage of fault. Because this involves the current version of MCA 27-1-702 and how it applies to your specific facts, review by an attorney is important before assuming how this rule applies to your situation.
Who decides each driver’s percentage of fault?
During settlement negotiations, insurance adjusters on each side typically propose and negotiate a fault percentage based on the available evidence. If the dispute isn’t resolved through negotiation, a judge or jury ultimately decides the fault allocation if the case proceeds to litigation.
Does a traffic ticket prove who caused the accident?
No. A traffic citation is one piece of evidence, but it doesn’t automatically resolve every element required to establish civil negligence in an insurance claim or lawsuit. Other evidence still needs to be considered alongside any citation issued at the scene.
Can an insurer change its fault position during negotiations?
Yes. An insurer’s position on fault can shift as new evidence comes to light or as negotiations progress. This is part of why documenting a clear, well-supported rebuttal to an initial fault allocation matters, since insurers may adjust their position when presented with stronger evidence than what they initially relied on.
