Opinion ID: 885879
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Were the Stroms' claims barred by the three-year statute of limitations?

Text: ¶ 15 The Logans contend that the Stroms' claim for negligent misrepresentation was barred by the three-year statute of limitations set forth in § 27-2-204, MCA. Although the Logans raised the statute of limitations defense in their amended answer and in the pretrial order, the District Court did not specifically rule on that issue. ¶ 16 The Logans contend that the statute of limitations began running in 1994 when the parties signed the disclosure statement which advised of the existence of fire damage and stated that the property was sold as is. Even assuming that the true condition of the house was concealed, the Logans contend that the Stroms could and should have discovered the house's true condition through the exercise of due diligence; in particular, they could have insisted upon a home inspection. The Stroms argue that they did not discover the fire damage until June 1997 when they had the roof repaired, and, as buyers, they had no duty to uncover the latent fire damage. Rather, the Logans, as the homeowner sellers, had a duty to obtain and communicate information on the true condition of the house. Wagner v. Cutler (1988), 232 Mont. 332, 339, 757 P.2d 779, 783. We agree. ¶ 17 Although the District Court did not address the statute of limitations argument, the Stroms point out that the court did conclude that, since there was no easy access to the burned area, the Stroms had no obligation to cut holes in the walls to ascertain the extent of the damage. This conclusion is consistent with our holding in Wagner, that the buyer is under no additional duty to discover the latent defects in the house. Wagner, 232 Mont. at 336-37, 757 P.2d at 782. Rather, the burden is on the homeowner to obtain and communicate information relating to the true condition of the home. ¶ 18 Where the facts constituting a claim are by their nature concealed, or where the defendant has taken action which prevents the injured party from discovering the injury or its cause, the three-year statute of limitations does not begin to run until the facts constituting the claim either were discovered or should have been discovered with due diligence. Section 27-2-102(3)(a), MCA. In the case sub judice, the fire damage was concealed behind new sheetrock. Furthermore, as noted above, due diligence did not require the Stroms to cut holes in the walls and ceilings. ¶ 19 We agree with the Stroms that they filed their complaint well within three years of first discovering the extent of the damage after the hail storm of June 1997. ¶ 20 We hold that the Stroms' claims were not barred by the statute of limitations.