Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Construction Statute Of Repose topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to shorten construction statute of repose from 10 to 6 years
Summary
Sen. Greg Hertz said SB143 would reduce Montana’s statute of repose for construction defects from 10 to 6 years to lower litigation risk and housing costs; proponents including Shelter Whitefish and NFIB supported the change while trial lawyers urged caution about applicability and notice periods.
Sen. Greg Hertz told the House Judiciary committee that Senate Bill 143 would change Montana's construction statute of repose from 10 years to 6 years after project completion, arguing the longer window raises litigation risk, insurance costs and housing prices.
"That is significantly higher than other states," Hertz said, adding that reducing the window should help lower construction and insurance costs for multifamily and missing‑middle housing.
Jake Brown of Shelter Whitefish and Rhonda Wiggers of the National Federation of Independent Business testified in favor of the bill. Brown said the measure would reduce the risk that discourages builders from constructing middle‑income housing such as condos and townhomes. Wiggers said the shorter period would be easier for small contractors to document events and likely reduce insurance premiums.
Nikki Zupanic of the Montana Trial Lawyers Association raised concerns about the bill's applicability date. Zupanic told the committee that applying the shortened period to actions "commenced on or after October 1" could unexpectedly shorten claimants’ time to file and urged that applicability be tied to the date the contract was signed or the date of breach to give fair notice.
Members asked whether Montana's soil and foundation issues justify a 10‑year window. Hertz said no state analysis was done and referenced other states using shorter periods. He pointed to ongoing studies (cited Colorado on multifamily insurance) as evidence of potential savings but acknowledged that granular Montana‑specific filing data for years 7–10 was not presented.
Hertz closed by saying the proposal came from a bipartisan housing task force and would help reduce costs; the committee closed the hearing with no immediate vote recorded.
