Hill County High School District No. a v. Dick Anderson Construction, Inc.
390 P.3d 602
Mont.2017Background
- Hill County School District contracted Springer (architect) in 1996 and Anderson (contractor) in 1997 to replace Havre High School’s roof; work began June 1997 and a final walkthrough occurred January 1998. School in full use by April 1998 and final payment made then.
- The roof exhibited defects soon after installation (leaks, missing shingles/ridge caps, twisted/loose beams); Springer and Anderson performed repairs through 2003 and told the District repairs were finished in October 2003.
- No certificate of completion was ever executed by Springer or Anderson.
- After a heavy snowstorm in December 2010, a large portion (~6,000 sq ft) of the roof collapsed.
- District sued in December 2011 for negligence, breach of warranty/contract, misrepresentation, deceit, and fraud; defendants moved for summary judgment asserting claims were time-barred by the 10-year statute of repose (§ 27-2-208, MCA).
- District Court granted summary judgment for defendants, denied tolling based on fraudulent concealment, and awarded Springer attorney fees under the contract; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 27-2-208’s 10‑year statute of repose bars claims | Roof never ‘‘completed’’ because defects persisted and no completion certificate issued; accrual tolled until discovery of structural omissions (post‑collapse) | ‘‘Completion’’ occurs when owner can use improvement for intended purpose; School used building under new roof by April 1998, so repose expired before suit | Repose applies: roof completed April 1998; claims time‑barred |
| Whether the repose period may be tolled for fraudulent concealment or late discovery | Tolling or later accrual under general discovery rules (§ 27‑2‑102) because defendants concealed key defects (e.g., missing strap bracing) | Statute of repose is absolute and not tolled by fraudulent concealment or late discovery | Repose is absolute; not tolled by fraud or late discovery |
| Whether ongoing repair work by defendants prevented repose from running | Continued repair activity (through 2003) shows project remained incomplete; repose did not start in 1998 | Subsequent repairs do not negate that owner was using the improvement for its intended purpose in 1998; ongoing fixes show poor performance, not incompletion | Rejected—ongoing repairs do not defeat completion under § 27‑2‑208(4)(a) |
| Whether Springer is entitled to attorney fees under contract | District: suit arose after contract term and did not rely on contract provisions; litigation not "relating to" the agreement | Contract clause entitles prevailing party to fees for litigation relating to provisions; lawsuit arises from Springer’s contracted design work | Contract covers this litigation; court must award Springer fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Joyce v. Garnaas, 983 P.2d 369 (Mont. 1999) (describing statutes of repose as substantive immunity after legislatively set period)
- Ass’n of Unit Owners of Deer Lodge Condominium v. Big Sky, 798 P.2d 1018 (Mont. 1990) (ten‑year repose for construction improvements is an absolute bar)
- Hein v. Sott, 353 P.3d 494 (Mont. 2015) (statute of repose is absolute; not extended by late discovery of defects)
- Snyder v. Love, 153 P.3d 571 (Mont. 2006) (statute of repose is not tolled for fraudulent concealment)