Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Construction Statute Of Repose topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor seeks to shorten construction liability period from 10 to 6 years
Summary
Sen. Greg Hertz introduced a bill to reduce Montana's construction statute of repose from 10 years to six years, a change supporters say would lower insurance and construction costs; trial lawyers warned about shorter filing windows and the bill’s applicability date.
Sen. Greg Hertz (Senate District 7) presented Senate Bill 143 to reduce Montana’s construction statute of repose from 10 years after project completion to six years. "If you look on page 1, line 28 I believe. It just strikes 10 years and changes it to 6 years after completion," Hertz said.
Proponents including Jake Brown of Shelter Whitefish and Rhonda Wiggers of the National Federation of Independent Business said shortening the liability window will reduce litigation risk, lower insurance costs for builders and encourage production of moderately priced housing such as townhomes and condos. "Reducing this to 6 years seems like a common sense good move that will help the cost of housing in the state of Montana and help small businesses," Wiggers said.
Nikki Zupanic of the Montana Trial Lawyers Association testified in opposition and raised concerns about the bill’s applicability date; she warned the draft would apply to actions "commenced on or after October first of this year," potentially shortening time frames for existing claims without additional notice. Zupanic asked the committee to consider whether accrued claims and contractual disputes would be unfairly truncated.
Committee members pressed the sponsor on whether state-specific construction conditions such as expansive clay — which can produce foundation problems appearing in later years — were analyzed. Hertz replied the proposal did not include a state-specific litigation study but argued neighboring states with shorter windows have not experienced the problems suggested by opponents.
Supporters framed the bill as one recommendation from a housing task force and said it targets rising housing costs by removing a litigation-related barrier to midlevel housing production. Opponents urged caution about the six-year limit and about the bill’s retroactive effect on claims accrued but not yet filed.
The committee heard testimony from pro- and anti- witnesses but did not record a floor vote during the hearing; the bill remains in committee for further consideration.
