Hein v. Sott
| Decision Date | 14 July 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. DA 14–0759.,DA 14–0759. |
| Citation | 353 P.3d 494,2015 MT 196,380 Mont. 85 |
| Parties | Jim HEIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John W. SOTT, d/b/a Sott Homes, and Krude Kustoms, LLC, Defendants and Appellees. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
380 Mont. 85
353 P.3d 494
2015 MT 196
Jim HEIN, Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
John W. SOTT, d/b/a Sott Homes, and Krude Kustoms, LLC, Defendants and Appellees.
No. DA 14–0759.
Supreme Court of Montana.
Submitted on Briefs May 27, 2015.
Decided July 14, 2015.
For Appellant: William M. Gilbert, High Plains Law, PLLC, Billings, Montana.
For Appellees: Eric Edward Nord, Tanis M. Holm, Crist, Krogh, Butler & Nord, LLC, Billings, Montana.
Opinion
Justice BETH BAKER delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶ 1 This case arises from a dispute between Jim Hein and John Sott and his companies, Sott Homes and Krude Kustoms, LLC (collectively, “ Sott”), builders of Hein's home. Hein appeals the Thirteenth Judicial District Court's July 8, 2013 Order partially granting Sott's Motion to Dismiss, and its September 26, 2014 Order granting Sott's Motion for Summary Judgment. We address the following issues on appeal:
1. Whether the District Court correctly concluded that Hein's negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims arising from the 2001 construction of his home and the subsequent inspections and repairs were barred by the statute of repose, § 27–2–208, MCA ;
2. Whether the District Court erred in concluding that Hein's
Consumer Protection Act claims arising from the 2001 construction of his home and the subsequent inspections and repairs were barred by the statute of limitations, § 27–2–211, MCA ;
3. Whether the District Court erred in granting summary judgment because Hein did not provide expert testimony on causation for his Consumer Protection Act claim arising from Sott's alleged breach of contract and deceptive billing practices.
¶ 2 We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
¶ 3 Sott is a general contractor based in Billings, Montana, and the sole owner of Krude Kustoms, LLC, a metal fabricating and trucking firm. In 2001, Hein hired Sott to construct a log home for him. Sott completed the home that same year.
¶ 4 Each winter following construction of the home, Hein noticed water damage appearing in different areas of the home's tongue and groove ceiling. Each time, Hein asked Sott to do an inspection and, each time, Sott informed Hein that he had repaired the problem. In 2012, after once again noticing water damage, Hein consulted a roofing contractor, Steve Ausen. According to Hein, Ausen discovered that the water damage was caused by improper ventilation in the roof, an issue that Sott never identified.
¶ 5 In 2011, Hein hired Sott to build an addition to the home (hereinafter, “2011 addition”). In 2013, Sott ceased work on the project before completion. The parties dispute the reason behind Sott's decision not to complete the project: Hein alleges that Sott overbilled for services for which Hein already paid, and Sott claims that he stopped working on the addition because Hein was no longer paying him.
¶ 6 On April 19, 2013, Hein filed a complaint alleging three counts against Sott: negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the Montana Consumer Protection Act, § 30–14–103, MCA. Sott moved under
M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss all of Hein's claims. On July 8, 2013, the District Court issued an order partially granting Sott's motion and dismissing Hein's claims related to the 2001 construction of the home as time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations, § 27–2–204, MCA, and statute of repose, § 27–2–208, MCA. The parties completed discovery and Sott moved for summary judgment on Hein's remaining claims, all arising from the construction of the 2011 addition, on the ground that Hein had not provided expert evidence that Sott's work was either defective or caused Hein damage. On
September 26, 2014, the District Court issued an order granting Sott's motion and dismissing Hein's remaining claims. Hein appeals both orders.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
¶ 7 We review de novo a district court's ruling on a M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Plouffe v. State, 2003 MT 62, ¶ 8, 314 Mont. 413, 66 P.3d 316. We construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and take all allegations of fact as true. Plouffe, ¶ 8 (citations omitted). We also review de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment. Bailey v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2013 MT 119, ¶ 18, 370 Mont. 73, 300 P.3d 1149. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. M.R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3) ; Smith v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 2008 MT 225, ¶ 10, 344 Mont. 278, 187 P.3d 639. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we review for correctness. City of Missoula v. Iosefo, 2014 MT 209, ¶ 8, 376 Mont. 161, 330 P.3d 1180.
DISCUSSION
¶ 8 1. Whether the District Court correctly concluded that Hein's negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims arising from the 2001 construction of his home and the subsequent inspections and repairs were barred by the statute of repose, § 27–2–208, MCA.
¶ 9 The statute of limitations for general tort actions, including negligence and negligent misrepresentation, is three years. Section 27–2–204, MCA. The statute of repose for actions for damages arising out of work on improvements to real property, § 27–2–208(1), MCA, provides:
[A]n action to recover damages ... resulting from or arising out of the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction, or observation of construction of any improvement to real property ... may not be commenced more than 10 years after completion of the improvement....
Accordingly, even if the statute of limitations is tolled, a tort action related to construction damages may not be brought more than ten years after construction is completed.See Ass'n of Unit Owners of Deer Lodge Condo. v. Big Sky, 245 Mont. 64, 80–81, 798 P.2d 1018, 1028 (1990).
¶ 10 The District Court determined that Hein's negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims arising from water damage to his
home are barred by the statutes of limitations and repose because they relate to Sott's construction of Hein's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Missoula v. Mountain Water Co.
...citations omitted). ¶ 19 We review de novo a district court's rulings on motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment. Hein v. Sott, 2015 MT 196, ¶ 7, 380 Mont. 85, 353 P.3d 494. ¶ 20 We review a district court's findings of fact to determine if they are clearly erroneous. In re Marr......
-
Reavis v. Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency
...12(b)(1) motion. STANDARD OF REVIEW¶13 We review de novo a district court's ruling on a M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Hein v. Sott , 2015 MT 196, ¶ 7, 380 Mont. 85, 353 P.3d 494. We construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and all allegations of fact a......
-
Mont. Indep. Living Project, Inc. v. City of Helena
...MILP appeals.STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶7 "We review de novo a district court's ruling on a M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss." Hein v. Sott , 2015 MT 196, ¶ 7, 380 Mont. 85, 353 P.3d 494 (citation omitted). "The correct interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we review de nov......
-
Hill Cnty. High Sch. Dist. No. A v. Dick Anderson Constr., Inc.
...poses "an absolute bar to bringing a claim for construction-related damages more than ten years after construction is completed." Hein v. Sott , 2015 MT 196, ¶ 11, 380 Mont. 85, 353 P.3d 494 ; accord Ass'n of Unit Owners of Deer Lodge Condominium v. Big Sky , 245 Mont. 64, 80, 798 P.2d 1018......