Revise and clarify the law regarding apportionment of fault
HB 303 revises Montana’s apportionment-of-fault statute, section 27-1-703, MCA, to clarify how fault may be allocated in civil cases involving negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty claims. The bill expressly states that a defendant may argue that a nonparty was the sole cause of the claimant’s injuries without first seeking formal apportionment of fault against that nonparty. It also preserves and expands procedures for defendants to assert that a settled or released person caused all or part of the damages, while setting out how that defense must be pleaded, proved, and noticed to the affected parties.
The bill keeps the existing framework of joint and several liability and several liability for parties found 50% or less at fault, while refining how the trier of fact considers the negligence of claimants, defendants, third-party defendants, and certain settled or released persons. It prohibits verdict-form apportionment against immune persons, persons outside the court’s jurisdiction, or persons who could have been but were not named as third parties, except for settled or released persons. It also specifies that a settlement reduces the claimant’s recovery by the settled person’s equitable share and places the burden on the defendant to prove the fault of a released or settled person. In practical terms, the bill affects tort litigation, contribution claims, settlement strategy, and how fault is presented to juries in Montana civil cases.
HB 303 would amend Montana’s comparative fault and apportionment rules in section 27-1-703, MCA, affecting negligence, strict liability, and warranty actions. It would change litigation practice by explicitly allowing sole-cause arguments against nonparties, clarifying when and how defendants can seek apportionment involving settled or released persons, and reinforcing notice and pleading requirements for those defenses. The bill would primarily affect plaintiffs, defendants, insurers, and trial courts handling personal injury, property damage, and product/warranty disputes.
The bill appears to have had mixed but ultimately insufficient support. It passed the House on party-line-like margins and received unanimous support in the Senate Judiciary Committee motion to table, indicating that while some legislators supported clarifying apportionment law, the bill did not advance out of the Senate. The lack of recorded committee testimony in the provided materials limits insight into detailed public debate, but the voting pattern suggests the measure was controversial enough to stall in standing committee after clearing the House.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s effect on fault allocation in civil lawsuits, especially the new express permission for defendants to argue that a nonparty was the sole cause of injury without formal apportionment. Supporters would view this as a clarification of existing practice and a fairness measure for defendants; opponents may see it as expanding defenses that can reduce plaintiffs’ recoveries or complicate trials. Another likely dispute concerns the treatment of settled or released persons, including the burden of proof, notice requirements, and the prohibition on apportioning fault to certain nonparties, all of which can materially affect settlement leverage and damages calculations.