Bill would fix two-year limit for real-property damage claims, sponsors say; opponents warn of lost remedies for contamination victims

Representative (sponsor) opened the hearing on House Bill 301, saying the measure would "clarify the statute of limitations is reserved at 2 years upon an act," and make clear the clock runs from discovery of real-property damage rather than allowing a new period after property transfers.

Why it matters: backers — trades groups, builders and the Montana Chamber of Commerce — said a fixed, two-year limitation encourages prompt claims, protects small builders and prevents multiple lawsuits over the same harm. Charles Robinson, speaking for the Montana Chamber of Commerce, told the committee the bill would “promote judicial economy” by ensuring claims are brought while evidence remains reliable.

Supporters’ view: Charles Robinson, representative of the Montana Chamber of Commerce, said the bill “revises statute of limitations to clarify that this 2 year statute does not reset when a property is sold or otherwise transferred.” Ashley Martinez of the Montana Building Industry Association and Dan Stusek of the Montana Defense Trial Lawyers said the change would reduce long-term liability uncertainty for builders and other businesses.

Opponents’ view: Attorneys and Libby-area residents objected, saying the bill would gut the so-called continuing-tort doctrine and bar legitimate claims arising from slowly migrating contaminants. Al Smith, an attorney who spoke for opponents, said the continuing-tort doctrine has allowed property owners “their day in court” when contamination migrates over years, and that HB 301 would “prevent property owners from their right to even get to the jury.”

Multiple residents with long-standing asbestos or contamination claims described how invisible or subsurface contaminants can remain undetected for years; witnesses from Libby said the bill could bar compensation and cleanup claims they consider necessary for health and property protection. Wagner Harmon, a landowner who testified, said the bill would “shift the burden of cleanup from the companies who made the mess … and put the burden… onto Montana landowners.”

Procedure and limits: proponents emphasized the bill does not affect the Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) or Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) independent authority to order remediation, but opponents said administrative cleanup does not substitute for private claims for damages or compensation.

The committee did not take a final vote on HB 301 during the hearing.

Looking ahead: supporters urged the committee to “take this back from the courts” and restore what they described as the legislature’s intended two-year limit; opponents asked legislators to preserve the continuing-tort approach that has allowed long-latency contamination claims to proceed to trial.

Ending note: testimony combined technical legal debate about limitations doctrine with personal accounts from communities that say they continue to live with legacy contamination, producing sharply divergent forecasts about who would bear long-term costs if the change becomes law.