Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hill County High School District No. A v. Dick Anderson Construction, Inc.

Supreme Court of Montana

February 7, 2017

HILL COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. A, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
DICK ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION, INC., and SPRINGER GROUP ARCHITECTS, P.C., Defendants and Appellees.

          Submitted on Briefs: December 7, 2016

         APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, In and For the County of Hill, Cause No. DV-11-163 Honorable Daniel A. Boucher, Presiding Judge

         COUNSEL OF RECORD:

          For Appellant: Thomas D. "Todd" Shea, Jr., Shea Law Firm, PLLC, Bozeman, Montana

          For Appellees: Steve W. Reida, Alexander L. Roots, Landoe, Brown, Planalp & Reida, P.C., Bozeman, Montana Jon A. Wilson, Brett C. Jensen, Brown Law Firm, P.C., Billings, Montana

          OPINION

          Beth Baker, Justice

         ¶1 Hill County High School District No. A filed suit after Havre High School's roof-which Dick Anderson Construction, Inc., built and Springer Group Architects, P.C., designed-partially collapsed in 2010. The Twelfth Judicial District Court granted Anderson and Springer summary judgment after concluding that the statute of repose time-barred the School District's claims. We address the following issues on appeal:

1. Whether the District Court correctly held that the statute of repose barred the School District's claims;
2. Whether the District Court correctly held that the period of repose could not be tolled;
3. Whether the District Court correctly awarded Springer attorney fees under the contract.

         ¶2 We affirm.

         PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         ¶3 The School District entered into a contract with Springer in 1996 to design a new roof for Havre High School. The School District then entered into a contract with Anderson in 1997 to construct the roof. Anderson began construction in June 1997. The expected completion date for the project was October 1997. It is undisputed that the project was not completed by that point, but the parties dispute whether the project ever was "completed." Nevertheless, a final walkthrough occurred in January 1998 in which the parties discussed various punch list items that needed to be addressed. The school was in full use by April 1998 and the School District issued final payment around that same time.

         ¶4 Problems emerged with the new roof almost immediately. For example, the roof leaked, shingles and ridge caps fell off, interior vertical and horizontal beams were twisted, several vertical beams were not properly attached to the flooring, and a portion of the roof began to pull away from a wall. Springer and Anderson worked with the School District to address the various problems beginning in 1998. In October 2003, Springer informed the School District that repairs were finished and that no further work was necessary. After a heavy snowstorm in December 2010, 6, 000 square feet of the roof collapsed.

         ¶5 The School District filed suit in December 2011. Its amended complaint alleged negligence, breach of express and implied warranty, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, deceit, and fraud. Springer and Anderson filed motions to dismiss- which the District Court converted to motions for summary judgment-asserting that the action was barred by the passage of time. The court granted Springer and Anderson summary judgment. It concluded that § 27-2-208, MCA, barred the School District's claims because the roof was "completed, " within the meaning of the statute, in 1998. The court concluded also that alleged fraudulent concealment would not toll the statute of repose under § 27-2-208, MCA. Finally, the court awarded Springer attorney fees pursuant to the contract between Springer and the School District. The School District claims error in each ruling.

         STANDARDS ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.