Reasonableness

• Reasonableness  is a question of fact.  Stewart v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp., 2013 MT  107, ¶ 31, 370 Mont. 19,  299 P.3d 820; Marcott v. Louisiana Pacific Corp., 275 Mont. 197, 202, 911 P.2d 1129, 1133 (1996)


• Reasonableness  generally presents a question of fact for the trier of fact to weigh the  evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses.  Burley v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 2012 MT  28, ¶ 90, 364 Mont. 77,  273 P.3d 825.


• Although  breach of a duty to exercise reasonable care is generally a question of fact, Nelson v. Driscoll, 1999 MT 193, ¶ 40, 295 Mont. 363, 983 P.2d 972, such  questions may be determined as a matter of law "when reasonable minds cannot  differ," Wiley v. City of Glendive, 272 Mont. 213, 216, 900 P.2d 310, 312 (1995).  Garza v. Forquest Ventures, Inc., 2015 MT  284, ¶ 38, 381 Mont.  189, 358 P.3d 189.


• When  the facts are clearly established or are admitted or undisputed, the  question of what is a reasonable time is one of law.  The question of whether a given length of  time is reasonable can be either a question of fact or a question of law. When  the surrounding circumstances are clearly established or undisputed the  question is solely one of law for resolution by the court. On the other hand,  when the surrounding circumstances are in dispute the question is at least  partially one of fact and requires resolution by the trier of fact.  Walters v. Getter, 232 Mont.  196, 200, 755 P.2d 574,  577 (1988).


• In  determining whether an insurer had a reasonable basis in law for contesting a  claim or the amount of the claim, although the determination of whether a party  acted reasonably was typically a question of fact for the jury, whether an  insurer was reasonable in its interpretation of legal precedent in its coverage  determination is a question of law for the court.  State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Freyer, 2013 MT  301, ¶ 48, 372 Mont.  191, 312 P.3d 403.