Montana's minimum liability limits are 25 / 50 / 20

MCA § 61-6-103 establishes the minimum liability protection for a qualifying Montana motor-vehicle liability policy.

$25,000 Bodily injury or death
to one person

$50,000 Bodily injury or death
to two or more people

$20,000 Injury to or destruction
of property

The statutory minimum is not a statement of adequate coverage. A serious injury can exceed $25,000 quickly. The minimum describes the statutory liability floor; it does not tell us whether the available insurance is sufficient to compensate the injured person or protect an insured from a substantial judgment.

A statutory minimum is a floor—not a coverage finding. The actual claim may involve higher liability limits, another vehicle-owner policy, employer or commercial insurance, umbrella or excess insurance, UM/UIM, MedPay, or multiple policies.

Who must the required liability policy protect?

MCA § 61-6-103 requires the policy to identify the covered vehicles and insure both the person named in the policy and qualifying persons using a covered motor vehicle with the named insured's express or implied permission.

Required insured

The named insured

The person identified as the insured under the motor-vehicle liability policy receives the protection required by the statute, subject to the policy and Montana law.

Omnibus protection

Qualifying permissive users

A person using the covered vehicle with the named insured's express or implied permission is within Montana's statutory omnibus protection, subject to the current statute and the facts establishing permission.

The insurance card is not the end of the inquiry. Required liability protection is not limited simply to the person whose name appears on an insurance card. Ownership, permission, vehicle status, policy language and statutory exceptions must be investigated.

Named family-member exclusion

Current MCA § 61-6-301 expressly provides that Montana's mandatory-liability framework does not prohibit a motor-vehicle liability policy from excluding a named family member.

Do not generalize older exclusion cases without checking the current statute. Montana has historically invalidated automobile exclusions that conflicted with mandatory protection, but the Legislature now expressly authorizes the named-family-member exclusion described in § 61-6-301. The actual policy and current statute must be read together.

The required portion of the policy receives special statutory protection

Montana treats the coverage required by its motor-vehicle responsibility statutes differently from purely supplemental insurance.

Under MCA § 61-6-103, once injury or damage covered by the required motor-vehicle liability policy occurs, the insurer's liability for that required protection becomes absolute. The insurer and insured may not simply cancel or annul that liability after the occurrence, and a statement by the insured or policy violation may not defeat or void the required policy.

Do not treat a post-crash policy violation as the end of the analysis. First determine whether the disputed protection is part of the statutory liability floor. Montana expressly treats additional or excess coverage differently from the coverage required by § 61-6-103.

Liability, UM, UIM and MedPay are different coverages

One of the most common insurance mistakes is treating the declarations page as though every listed coverage performs the same function or is required by the same law.

Coverage	Montana status	General function
Liability	Statutorily required at not less than the applicable Montana minimums, subject to statutory exceptions.	Protects against liability imposed by law for bodily injury, death and property damage caused to others.
UM	Must be provided in qualifying Montana auto policies unless rejected by the named insured.	Protects insured persons legally entitled to recover bodily-injury damages from an uninsured motorist.
UIM	Not generally mandated by MCA § 33-23-201. Determine whether it was purchased.	Can provide additional first-party protection when applicable liability insurance is insufficient for the compensable loss.
MedPay	Not mandatory under Montana's automobile-liability statutes.	Can provide first-party medical-expense benefits according to the coverage actually purchased and the policy terms.
Collision / Comprehensive	Generally contractual rather than part of the mandatory liability floor.	Protects the insured vehicle against specified physical losses, subject to the contract.
Umbrella / Excess	Supplemental coverage if purchased.	May provide an additional liability layer above underlying insurance, subject to its own definitions, exclusions and conditions.

Montana uninsured-motorist coverage

MCA § 33-23-201 requires a qualifying motor-vehicle liability policy issued for a vehicle registered and principally garaged in Montana to provide uninsured-motorist bodily-injury protection at the statutory bodily-injury limits unless the named insured rejects that coverage.

If the named insured previously rejected UM with the same insurer, the insurer generally need not restore UM to a renewal policy unless the insured later requests the coverage in writing.

UM and UIM are not the same coverage. Montana has a statute requiring UM unless rejected. It does not impose the same general mandate for UIM. Review the declarations, endorsements and complete policy separately for each.

Do not assume “full coverage” means UIM exists. “Full coverage” is not a legal coverage category. Determine whether UIM was actually purchased, what limit applies, who qualifies as an insured, and what exclusions or conditions govern it.

Montana uses a two-level coverage analysis

Level one

What does Montana law require?

Begin with the statutory liability floor and any other statutory protection, including Montana's UM requirement unless rejected.

Policy language generally cannot eliminate protection the Legislature requires unless current law authorizes the particular exclusion or limitation.

Level two

What additional protection was purchased?

Then analyze UIM, MedPay, umbrella, excess and other supplemental protection under the actual policy, Montana insurance law and applicable public-policy doctrines.

Supplemental coverage may be contractually limited even when a similar restriction could not eliminate the required statutory liability floor.

The distinction matters. An exclusion can be ineffective against statutorily required protection yet enforceable in a different supplemental coverage. Conversely, an exclusion in optional coverage can still violate Montana public policy if it defeats coverage for which valuable consideration was received.

Coverage verification workflow

Do not reach a coverage conclusion from an insurance card, declarations page, or adjuster's statement alone.

Identify the vehicle. Obtain the VIN, registered owner, registration and every policy potentially covering the vehicle.

Identify the driver. Determine named-insured status, household relationship, express or implied permission and any exclusion identifying the driver or a named family member.

Verify the complete liability limits. Do not rely solely on the insurance card. Obtain the declarations and, when available, the complete policy and endorsements.

Determine whether another owner policy applies. A driver policy is not necessarily the complete insurance picture when another person or entity owns the vehicle.

Verify UM separately. Determine whether UM was provided or validly rejected by the named insured.

Verify UIM separately. Do not infer UIM from UM, liability insurance or the phrase “full coverage.”

Verify MedPay and other first-party benefits. Determine whether MedPay or another applicable first-party coverage was purchased and identify the governing limits and insured definitions.

Find umbrella, excess, employer and commercial insurance. The statutory minimum may be only the first layer of available protection.

Classify every disputed exclusion. Ask whether the provision affects mandatory liability protection, statutorily required UM, supplemental first-party coverage, or excess coverage.

Check current law before relying on an older case. Montana automobile-insurance statutes have been amended over time. Historical public-policy cases must be read together with the statute in force for the claim.

Policy review checklist

named insured
vehicle VIN
registered owner
policy period
liability limits
permissive-user status
named family-member exclusion
other driver-specific exclusions
UM limits
UM rejection
UIM coverage and limits
MedPay
collision
comprehensive
business-use endorsements
rideshare exclusions
other-insurance clauses
umbrella coverage
commercial excess coverage
all endorsements

Montana authority map

Primary Law · MCA § 61-6-103 Minimum limits and omnibus insured protection

Establishes the 25/50/20 statutory limits, requires protection for the named insured and qualifying express or implied permissive users, and provides special statutory rules for the required motor-vehicle liability policy.

Primary Law · MCA § 61-6-301 Required insurance and named family-member exclusion

Requires qualifying owners and operators to maintain liability insurance or an authorized alternative and expressly provides that Montana's mandatory-liability framework does not prohibit exclusion of a named family member.

Primary Law · MCA § 33-23-201 Uninsured-motorist coverage unless rejected

Requires qualifying Montana motor-vehicle liability policies to provide UM bodily-injury protection unless the named insured rejects the coverage.

Montana Supreme Court Bill Atkin Volkswagen, Inc. v. McClafferty, 213 Mont. 99, 689 P.2d 1237 (1984)

Held that the automobile owner's mandatory insurance obligation extended to a customer permissively using a dealership loaner; the existence of the driver's separate insurance did not eliminate the owner's statutory duty.

Montana Supreme Court Horace Mann Insurance Co. v. Hampton, 235 Mont. 354, 767 P.2d 343 (1989)

Applied Montana's mandatory-liability framework where the driver initially obtained the insured vehicle with permission, reinforcing the protective purpose of the statutory coverage floor.

Montana Supreme Court Swank v. Chrysler Insurance Corp., 282 Mont. 376, 938 P.2d 631 (1997)

Applied Montana's permissive-user mandate to dealership insurance and rejected policy treatment that attempted to provide less protection to a permissive customer because other insurance was available.

Montana Supreme Court Stutzman v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America, 284 Mont. 372, 945 P.2d 32 (1997)

Important distinction between mandatory automobile liability coverage and UIM. Montana does not generally mandate UIM, so contractual UIM limitations receive a different analysis from provisions impairing statutorily required liability protection.

Montana Supreme Court Fisher v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 2013 MT 208

Enforced a clear family-member exclusion in optional umbrella coverage and explains why Montana public policy does not invalidate every exclusion affecting supplemental insurance.

Montana Supreme Court Goss v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co., 2021 MT 289

Confirms that UIM and MedPay are not mandatory Montana coverages, while also demonstrating that contractual limitations on supplemental coverage remain subject to Montana public-policy review.

Source-control rule: current Montana statutes and official court opinions control. Case summaries here identify the doctrinal path; they do not replace review of the complete opinion, statutory amendments, or current treatment.

Frequently asked questions

Does Montana require every driver to carry at least 25/50/20?

Montana's mandatory-liability framework generally requires insurance in amounts not less than 25/50/20 for vehicles and operators subject to the statutes, while the Code also contains self-insurance and vehicle-specific exceptions. The particular vehicle and operator should be checked rather than assuming the same rule applies in every circumstance.

If the driver is not named on the insurance card, can there still be coverage?

Yes. Montana's required owner policy includes qualifying persons using the covered vehicle with the named insured's express or implied permission. Permission and any statutory exception or valid exclusion must be analyzed.

Can a Montana policy exclude a family member?

Current MCA § 61-6-301 expressly states that the mandatory-liability statute does not prohibit exclusion of a named family member. Review the exact exclusion and current statutory requirements before reaching a conclusion.

Is UM required in Montana?

A qualifying Montana motor-vehicle liability policy must provide uninsured- motorist bodily-injury coverage unless the named insured rejects it under MCA § 33-23-201.

Is UIM required in Montana?

Not generally. Montana does not impose the same statutory mandate for UIM that it imposes for UM. Determine whether UIM was purchased and analyze the actual policy.

Is MedPay required?

No. MedPay is not part of Montana's mandatory automobile-liability coverage. If purchased, its insureds, limits, exclusions and reimbursement issues depend on the policy and applicable Montana law.

If the policyholder violated a policy condition after the crash, does required liability coverage disappear?

Not necessarily. MCA § 61-6-103 gives the required portion of a qualifying motor-vehicle liability policy special protection after a covered injury or damage occurs. Supplemental or excess protection may require a different analysis.

Are the minimum limits usually the only insurance available?

No. The investigation should look for higher limits, another owner policy, household coverage, employer or commercial insurance, umbrella or excess insurance, and the injured person's own UM/UIM and MedPay coverage.

← Montana Library Home Return to the Montana Auto Insurance & Crash Law landing page. Next: Finding Every Insurance Policy → Move from Montana's statutory insurance floor to the complete search for driver, owner, household, commercial, umbrella and first-party coverage.

Required Auto Insurance & Minimum Limits in Montana