Montana Supreme Court Confirms: "Construction Defect" Is Not a Cause of Action
In a decision that quietly but clearly refines Montana's pleading standards, the Montana Supreme Court in Grosvold v. Neely, clarified that "construction defect" is not a standalone cause of action. While the case arose in the context of a property co-ownership dispute, the Court's opinion included a firm reminder to practitioners: a party must plead an actual claim for relief recognized under Montana law — not a label.
Case Overview
Although the central issue in Grosvold v. Neely was whether a joint tenant with right of survivorship could force a sale of property under Montana's partition statute (§ 70-29-101, MCA), the case also involved a counterclaim filed by Thomas Neely alleging "construction defect." Neely alleged that Karla Grosvold had performed negligent remodeling or construction work on their jointly owned home, but labeled his claim simply as "construction defect." The District Court dismissed that counterclaim, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed. The Court held: "We have previously clarified that 'construction defect is not a claim for relief.'"
What This Means for Construction Cases in Montana
This holding is a reminder that Montana courts will not recognize "construction defect" as a cause of action in itself. Parties alleging problems with design, workmanship, or materials must plead claims using well-established legal theories — typically:- Negligence (e.g., duty, breach, causation, and damages)
- Breach of Contract
- Breach of Implied Warranty of Workmanlike Construction
A pleading that merely alleges "construction defect" without tying it to a recognized legal theory is subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), as confirmed again in Grosvold.
Why This Matters to Contractors, Homeowners, and Lawyers Alike
- For Plaintiffs: Vague claims labeled "construction defect" will not survive early motion practice unless they clearly identify a valid cause of action.
- For Defendants: Motions to dismiss are well-founded where plaintiffs rely solely on general allegations of "defects" without pleading actionable conduct.
Beyond Labels: Precision in Pleading Is Crucial
As construction defect litigation increases across Montana — particularly in high-growth areas — practitioners must be vigilant in how they frame their claims. The Supreme Court's ruling reaffirms that judges expect precision, and labels like "defect" or "poor workmanship" are insufficient without a legal theory and factual support.