In Stevens v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 2010 MT 282, 358 Mont. 474, 247 P.3d 244, 248 (Mont. 2010), the physician prescribed the plaintiff--patient a medication regimen to combat a cancerous disease Thereafter, the plaintiff sustained chronic pain, and attributed the defendant's--manufacturer's medication as the cause. Id. at 248-49. During this time, three class actions were filed in a U.S. District Court for the District of Tennessee ("Tennessee U.S. District Court"), specifically Becker, et al. v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., alleging that the defendant failed to warn its consumers of the risks of its products. Id. at 249. However, the Tennessee U.S. District Court denied class certification. Id. A few months before the Tennessee U.S. District Court denied certification, the plaintiff filed an action against the defendant in a Montana circuit court. Id. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, averring that the statute of limitations had expired. Id. The circuit court denied the motion, and the jury ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Id. On appeal, the plaintiff alleged that "because the Becker class action contained a request for worldwide class certification, and contained a claim for failure to warn against the dangers of Zometa . . ., the statute of limitations was tolled as to her, along with all other potential class members, under the class action tolling rule." Id. at 250. The defendant maintained that because the class action occurred in Tennessee, and not Montana, the Montana Supreme Court should have ignored the cross-jurisdictional class action tolling doctrine. Id. at 252. The Court disagreed, and stated: But as we have observed above, all plaintiffs, regardless of residency, are constitutionally guaranteed the right to file suit in Montana. We conclude that the best judge of these competing arguments will be experience . . . . Thus, although avoiding the possibility of a rush of out-of-state plaintiffs filing in our court system is concededly a valid policy objective, we consider this objective less compelling than competing considerations. We suspect that a greater burden on the court system will be imposed by not adopting the rule, as plaintiffs would be required to file protective individual suits in Montana courts to avoid limitations defenses, while otherwise relying on a pending class action suit filed elsewhere. This directly conflicts with the rationale underlying the class action tolling rule: to promote judicial economy by encouraging individual plaintiffs to defer to class action suits to protect their claims. We see no reason why jurisdictional boundaries should operate as a bar to the application of this policy. Id. at 256. Accordingly, the Montana Supreme Court determined that the plaintiff's complaint was filed in a timely fashion. Id. at 257.