Boyce v. Carpet Plus
2016 MT 258N
| Mont. | 2016Background
- In 2008 Abbey Carpet & Floor (Carpet Plus, Inc.) installed flooring/finish in a Missoula residence then owned by Tupi Plain, LLC; Sharon Boyce and Kyeann Sayer (Homeowners) occupied the house.
- Homeowners filed suit in 2010 against Abbey and individual installers alleging property damage and personal injuries from "toxic poisoning" caused by the floor finishing.
- Tupi Plain, LLC (the property owner in 2008 and 2010) was not a party to the lawsuit.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; the District Court granted summary judgment for defendants in December 2015.
- The District Court concluded Homeowners lacked standing to pursue property-damage claims belonging to the LLC, that Homeowners presented no competent expert proof on toxic hazard (failure-to-warn), and that individual defendants were shielded by acting within the scope of employment.
- Homeowners appealed; the Montana Supreme Court affirmed in a memorandum opinion and held the issues controlled by settled law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue for property damage | Boyce/Sayer: they may pursue property-damage claims stemming from the 2008 installation | Abbey: property damage claims belonged to Tupi Plain, LLC, not the individual occupants | Plaintiffs lacked standing; claims belonged to the LLC and individuals cannot sue for the LLC |
| Failure-to-warn / toxic injury proof | Homeowners: finishing materials caused toxic poisoning and injury | Abbey: no competent expert showing materials were hazardous; jurors lack common knowledge on this topic | Grant for defendants; plaintiffs offered no expert evidence and lay testimony insufficient |
| Personal liability of individual defendants | Homeowners: seek damages from individual installers personally | Defendants: installers acted within course and scope of employment for Abbey, shielding personal liability | Individuals shielded from personal liability because actions were within employment scope |
| Summary judgment standard | Homeowners: factual disputes preclude summary judgment | Defendants: no genuine issue of material fact; plaintiffs failed to meet evidentiary burden | Summary judgment affirmed; plaintiffs failed to present required evidence to defeat motions |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. Puget Sound Power & Light, 29 P.3d 1028 (Mont. 2001) (ownership/standing principles for property claims)
- Disler v. Ford Motor Co., 15 P.3d 864 (Mont. 2000) (expert proof required when issues are beyond common juror knowledge)
- Sherner v. Nat. Loss Control Serv., 124 P.3d 150 (Mont. 2005) (scope-of-employment can shield individual employees from personal liability)
- H & H Development v. Ramlow, 272 P.3d 657 (Mont. 2012) (individuals cannot sue on behalf of an LLC)