Hein v. Sott Homes, 2015 MT 196

Background

In 2001 Hein hired contractor John Sott to build a log home; after completion Hein observed recurring winter water damage to the tongue-and-groove ceiling. Sott repeatedly inspected and purportedly repaired the problems.
In 2011 Hein hired Sott to build an addition; work stopped in early 2013 amid disputed billing/payment issues.
In 2012 Hein obtained a second opinion; a roofer attributed the long‑running water damage to improper roof ventilation—an issue Sott allegedly never identified.
Hein sued April 19, 2013 asserting negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and Montana Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) claims arising from the 2001 construction, the repeated inspections/repairs, and the 2011 addition/billing.
The district court dismissed claims tied to the 2001 construction as time‑barred (statute of repose/limitations) and granted summary judgment against remaining claims for lack of expert proof of causation.
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of construction‑defect tort claims tied to 2001, but reversed as to certain MCPA claims based on post‑2011 inspections/repairs and the MCPA claim based on alleged deceptive billing for the 2011 addition; remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims tied to the 2001 construction/inspections are barred by the 10‑year statute of repose (§ 27‑2‑208)	Hein: each later inspection/repair was a new tortious act, so claims are timely	Sott: alleged injuries stem from 2001 construction; repose bars actions more than 10 years after completion	Court: claims derive from 2001 injury; statute of repose bars those tort claims — affirmed
Whether MCPA claims based on 2001 construction/inspections are time‑barred under the 2‑year statute (§ 27‑2‑211) and whether tolling applies	Hein: deceptive inspections/repairs concealed the cause, tolling limitations	Sott: limitations run; Hein failed to exercise due diligence, so tolling not available	Court: MCPA claims for acts before April 19, 2011 are time‑barred; however separate deceptive acts/repairs after April 19, 2011 can support timely MCPA claims — partly reversed
Whether MCPA claims based on post‑2011 inspections/repairs constitute separate actionable deceptive acts	Hein: each deceptive inspection/repair gives rise to a distinct MCPA claim within the 2‑year window	Sott: all conduct flows from original construction, so claims precluded as untimely	Court: post‑April 19, 2011 deceptive inspections/repairs may state timely MCPA claims — reversed as to those claims
Whether Hein needed expert testimony to prove his MCPA claim concerning the 2011 addition (billing, failure to complete work)	Hein: MCPA claim for deceptive billing/accepting payment for unfinished work is within lay factfinder competence; no expert required	Sott: MCPA claim is founded on alleged professional negligence; expert required on causation/standard of care	Court: expert not required for MCPA claim based on deceptive billing/unfinished work; summary judgment on that claim reversed and remanded

Key Cases Cited

Ass’n of Unit Owners of Deer Lodge Condo. v. Big Sky, 245 Mont. 64, 798 P.2d 1018 (Mont. 1990) (ten‑year statute of repose bars construction‑related claims regardless of discovery)
Snyder v. Love, 335 Mont. 49, 153 P.3d 571 (Mont. 2006) (fraudulent concealment does not toll the ten‑year statute of repose)
Tin Cup Cnty. Water v. Garden City Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 347 Mont. 468, 200 P.3d 60 (Mont. 2008) (expert testimony required when issue is beyond common experience and will assist the factfinder)
Rohrer v. Knudson, 349 Mont. 197, 203 P.3d 759 (Mont. 2009) (definition of "unfair act or practice" under Montana Consumer Protection Act)
Plouffe v. State, 314 Mont. 413, 66 P.3d 316 (Mont. 2003) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
City of Missoula v. Iosefo, 376 Mont. 161, 330 P.3d 1180 (Mont. 2014) (statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo)