Gomez v. State

• Decision Date: 01 April 1999
• Docket Number: No. 97-614,97-614
• Citation: 975 P.2d 1258,1999 MT 67
• Parties: John GOMEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE of Montana, and its responsible agents or agencies of the State of Montana as Does One through Five; and other unknown defendants as Does One through Ten, Defendants and Respondents.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

Page 1258

975 P.2d 1258

1999 MT 67

John GOMEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE of Montana, and its responsible agents or agencies of the State of Montana as Does One through Five and other unknown defendants as Does One through Ten, Defendants and Respondents.

No. 97-614.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Argued Oct. 20, 1998.

Submitted Nov. 19, 1998.

Decided April 1, 1999.

Richard J. Pyfer (argued); Small, Hatch, Doubek & Pyfer, Helena, Montana, For Appellant.

Michael R. King (argued), Special Assistant Attorney General, Risk Management & Tort Defense Division, Department of Administration, Helena, Montana, For Respondents.

Elizabeth A. Brennan; Rossbach Brennan, Missoula, Montana, For Montana Trial Lawyers Association.

Justice KARLA M. GRAY delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 John Gomez (Gomez) appeals from the judgment entered by the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, on its order granting summary judgment to the State of Montana (State). We affirm.

¶2 The issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in granting summary judgment to the State on the basis that Gomez's causes of action were barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

BACKGROUND

¶3 Gomez was employed by the City of Missoula, Montana (City), from May of 1988 to December 4, 1992. His job duties included painting city streets and cleaning painting equipment. The paints and other chemicals with which Gomez worked were supplied by the State from a State facility located in Missoula.

¶4 Shortly after beginning his employment with the City, Gomez began experiencing medical problems which included headaches, respiratory ailments, nasal polyps and infections; he believed his medical problems were connected to his exposure to paint and chemical fumes at work. Gomez first sought medical treatment in June of 1989 and subsequently was referred to four doctors, each of whom eventually confirmed his belief that his medical problems stemmed from his workplace exposure to chemical fumes.

¶5 In June of 1992, Gomez filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits from the City in which he stated that he had been injured by exposure to paints, solvents and chemicals in his workplace. The claim apparently was determined to be compensable as an occupational disease in August of 1992. In the fall of 1992, Gomez retained an attorney for the purpose of suing the State for damages arising from his medical problems. Notwithstanding Gomez's belief that he had a cause of action against the State at that time, however, he did not initiate legal proceedings. Gomez subsequently terminated his employment with the City on December 4, 1992.

¶6 Several years later, Gomez again retained an attorney and filed a claim against the State with the Risk Management and Tort Defense Division of the Department of Administration (RMTD). The RMTD received the claim on November 6, 1995, and denied it on March 4, 1996. Gomez then filed a complaint against the State in the District Court on April 2, 1996, alleging that he had been permanently injured by products manufactured or distributed by the State and used by him during his employment with the City, and bringing causes of action based on products liability, negligence and breach of the implied warranties of fitness and suitability. The State answered the complaint, conducted discovery and moved the District Court for summary judgment based on its assertion that all of Gomez's causes of action were barred because the statute of limitations had run. The District Court granted the State's summary judgment motion and entered judgment accordingly. Gomez appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶7 We review a district court's ruling on a summary judgment motion de novo, using the same Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P., criteria applied by the district court. Ross v. City of Great Falls, 1998 MT 276, p 9, --- Mont. ----, p 9, 967 P.2d 1103, p 9, 55 St.Rep. 1127, p 9. Rule 56(c), M.R.Civ.P., provides that

[t]he judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

In the usual summary judgment case, we begin our review by determining whether the moving party established the absence of genuine issues of material fact. Ross, p 10. Here, however, the parties agree on the material facts and, as a result, the question before us is whether the District Court correctly concluded that the State was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We review a district court's conclusions of law to determine whether the court's interpretation of the law is correct. Ross, p 10.

DISCUSSION

¶8 Did the District Court err in granting summary judgment to the State on the basis that Gomez's causes of action were barred by the applicable statute of limitations?

¶9 Before addressing the issue before us, it is appropriate to briefly review statute of limitations principles applicable to factual scenarios similar to the present case. First, the parties do not dispute that the three causes of action Gomez alleged against the State--products liability, negligence and breach of implied warranties--sound in tort and that tort actions must be commenced within three years of the date the cause of action accrues. See § 27-2-204(1), MCA; Hando v. PPG Industries, Inc. (1989), 236 Mont. 493, 501, 771 P.2d 956, 961; Bennett v. Dow Chemical Co. (1986), 220 Mont. 117, 122, 713 P.2d 992, 995.

¶10 Section 27-2-102(1)(a), MCA, provides that

a claim or cause of action accrues when all elements of the claim or cause exist or have occurred, the right to maintain an action on the claim or cause is complete, and a court or other agency is authorized to accept jurisdiction of the action....

A party's lack of knowledge of a cause of action or its accrual generally does not postpone the commencement of the statute of limitations period. Section 27-2-102(2), MCA. Under the "discovery rule," however, the limitations period does not begin to run when the facts constituting a claim or cause of action for personal injury are, by their nature, concealed or self-concealing, until the injured party has discovered the facts constituting the claim or, with due diligence, should have discovered those facts. See § 27-2-102(3)(a), MCA; Kaeding v. W.R. Grace & Co., 1998 MT 160, p 17, --- Mont. ----, p 17, 961 P.2d 1256, p 17, 55 St.Rep. 640, p 17.

¶11 We previously have held that, where a person's exposure to chemicals or other substances results in a latent disease or injury, the situation involves facts which, by their nature, are self-concealing. See, e.g., Hando, 236 Mont. at 501-02, 771 P.2d at 962; Kaeding, p 17. Consequently, in latent disease or injury cases, the point at which the statute of limitations begins to run is ascertained by applying the discovery rule and determining when the injured person knew or, in the exercise of due diligence, should have known of the facts constituting the cause of action.

¶12 Finally, when a claim is filed with the RMTD prior to bringing suit, the statute of limitations on the claim is tolled for 120 days from the date the RMTD receives the claim. Section 2-9-301(2), MCA. Thus, in the present case, when the RMTD received Gomez's claim on November 6, 1995, the three-year statute of limitations applicable to his tort causes of action was tolled for 120 days.

¶13 The District Court applied the above principles in analyzing whether Gomez's causes of action were barred as a matter of law. Applying the three-year tort statute of limitations and tolling that limitations period for 120 days as a result of Gomez filing his claim with the RMTD, the court counted backward 3 years and 120 days from April 2, 1996--the date on which Gomez filed his District Court complaint--and determined that, if Gomez's causes of action against the State accrued prior to December 3, 1992, they would be time barred. It then determined, based on the medical notes and reports from Gomez's doctors filed by the State in support of its motion for summary judgment, that the latest time Gomez knew or should have known that his medical problems were caused by exposure to paint and chemical fumes at his workplace was November of 1992. As a result, the District Court concluded that, under the discovery rule, Gomez's causes of action accrued prior to December 3, 1992, and were barred by the three-year statute of limitations.

¶14 Gomez does not challenge the District Court's calculations or conclusions regarding application of the discovery rule. Indeed, he concedes that, if the discovery rule is applied to the facts of this case, his claims are barred. Gomez contends, however, that his exposure to the chemical fumes which allegedly injured him occurred each day he worked for the City and was in the nature of a continuous tort. He argues that, because the harmful exposure to the chemicals was continuous, his causes of action did not accrue until December 4, 1992, his last day of employment with the City and the date of his last exposure to the paint and chemicals which allegedly caused his injury. Contending that the three-year statute of limitations for his tort claims did not begin to run until that date, Gomez asserts that the District Court erred in concluding that his complaint was time barred.

¶15 Acknowledging that we have never expressly adopted a continuous tort theory in determining when the statute of limitations begins to run in a latent disease case where exposure to a harmful substance occurs over an extended period of time, Gomez advances a number of arguments in support of his assertion that we should adopt such a theory in this case. He first asserts that we recognized in Hando that, where a person is exposed to paint fumes in the workplace over a period of time, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the ...