Victory Insurance Co. v. State Auditor

── Victory Insurance Co. v. State Auditor ── Court: Montana Supreme Court Date: May 12, 2026 Category: Direct Appeal 05/12/2026 DA 25-0511 Case Number: DA 25-0511 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2026 MT 100 VICTORY INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE OF MONTANA, COMMISSIONER OF SECURITIES AND INSURANCE, MONTANA STATE AUDITOR, Defendant and Appellee. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District, In and For the County of Lewis and Clark, Cause No. CDV-2024-259-JR Honorable Kathy Seeley, Presiding Judge COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Linda M. Deola, Scott L. Peterson, Morrison, Sherwood, Wilson & Deola, PLLP, Helena, Montana For Appellee: Patricia Klanke, Drake Law Firm, P.C., Helena, Montana Kirsten Madsen, Commissioner of Securities & Insurance, Office of the Montana State Auditor, Helena, Montana Submitted on Briefs: March 4, 2026 Decided: May 12, 2026 Filed: __________________________________________ Clerk Justice Beth Baker delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 The Montana Commissioner of Securities and Insurance initiated administrative proceedings against Victory Insurance Company for three violations of the Montana Insurance Code. The agency granted summary judgment in the Commissioner’s favor and fined Victory $25,000 for each violation. The District Court affirmed the final agency decision. We address the following restated issues: 1. Did the District Court err in affirming the agency’s summary judgment ruling that Victory failed to provide its records to the Commissioner in usable form? 2. Did the Commissioner act arbitrarily and capriciously when it ordered Victory to pay the Insurance Code’s maximum permitted fine? We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Victory is a Montana insurance company that agreed to serve as a managing general agent for Clear Spring Property and Casualty Company’s workers’ compensation policies in Montana. After Clear Spring gave Victory notice that it was terminating their agreement, the parties’ dispute led to litigation in federal court. In 2021, Clear Spring informed the Commissioner that Victory refused to turn over its managing general agent data, prompting the Commissioner to take administrative action against Victory. The factual background of this case is set forth in Victory Ins. Co. v. Downing, 2023 MT 139, 413 Mont. 80, 532 P.3d 850, in which we affirmed the District Court’s denial of Victory’s petition for writ of prohibition. We provide additional facts below as relevant to this appeal. 2 ¶3 The Commissioner wrote to Victory on September 3, 2021, demanding that Victory turn over all records in its possession related to its work as a managing general agent for Clear Spring by September 17, 2021. The Commissioner specified that “the form of the data that will be useable to CSI is in [comma-separated value (.csv)] files . . . unless its native format is not conducive to a .csv file.” Victory responded with two large sets of files in portable document format (PDF). These documents purported to show that Victory had transferred the requested data to Clear Spring and to Tristar, the third-party administrator. Victory also provided the Commissioner an email containing links to access a File Transfer Protocol site to view a sample of the actual files that Victory transferred to Clear Sprin