“misrepresenting] pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue”). Unlike the district court, however, we conclude that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, a genuine issue of fact remains as to whether Defendant conducted a reasonable investigation of Plaintiffs’ claim, as required by Montana Code Annotated section 33-18-201(4). See Lorang v. Fortis Ins. Co., 345 Mont. 12, 192 P.3d 186, 217 (2008) (“[T]he reasonableness of an insurer’s investigation is a factual issue which ordinarily must be resolved by the jury.”). The district court- correctly held that, in general, an insurance company may rely on a reasonable investigation conducted by the insured’s lawyer. See Ensey v. Colo. Cas., 306 Mont. 68, 30 P.3d 350, 352 (2001) (<HOLDING>). In this case, however, there is a triable
holding that an insurer can deny benefits based on late notice by the insured only when the insurer is prejudiced by the delay holding despite a reservation of rights that when the insurer provides a defense to its insured the insured has no right to interfere with the insurers control of the defense and a stipulated judgment between the insured and the injured claimant without the consent of the insurer is ineffective to impose liability upon the insurer holding that a defense lawyer retained to represent the insured can act on behalf of the insurer to fulfill obligations under section 201 of the utpa holding that where the insurer retains an attorney to represent the insured pursuant to an insurance policy the attorney acts in the capacity of an independent contractor for the insured holding that an insured may sue an insurance company for violation of the utpa before the underlying lawsuit is settled or a judgment entered