Why the first number is rarely the real number
Insurance adjusters routinely open negotiations with a conservative figure, expecting a counteroffer. Accepting that first offer typically closes the claim permanently — there's generally no going back to ask for more later, even if additional injuries or costs surface afterward.
A punitive damages cap that moves with the defendant
Most states that cap punitive damages use a single flat dollar figure that applies to every defendant alike. Montana does it differently: under MCA § 27-1-220, punitive damages are capped at the lesser of $10 million or 3% of the defendant's net worth. That means the real ceiling in a specific case depends on who's being sued, not just what they did — a genuinely different structure worth understanding if punitive damages are even potentially in play.
What this means for how exposure is sized up
Because the cap is tied to net worth, the same alleged conduct could carry a meaningfully different maximum punitive exposure depending on the defendant's financial position — a large corporation faces a very different practical ceiling than a small, individually-owned business, even for comparable behavior.
Fault still matters, even without a complete bar
Separately, it's worth remembering that Montana's 51% fault threshold still has real teeth below that line: fault reduces recovery dollar for dollar even though it never completely eliminates the claim the way it would at 51% or above. An adjuster's fault argument genuinely moves the number, just not to zero, as long as fault stays at 50% or under.
The baseline still applies
None of this changes the ordinary approach to a first offer: compare it against a complete, well-documented account of your actual damages before deciding whether to accept or counter, since the decision is generally final once made.