Revise laws related to increasing product liability protection for consumers relating to economic harm
Summary
SB 292 would amend Montana’s product liability statute to expressly allow recovery for not only physical injury and property damage, but also economic harm caused by a defective product. The bill states that a person engaged in selling an unreasonably dangerous product is liable for physical or economic harm to the ultimate user or consumer, even if the seller used all possible care and even if there was no direct contract between the parties.
The bill also reorganizes and restates a broad set of product-liability rules and defenses. It preserves existing defenses based on misuse, comparative fault, open and obvious defects, and the availability of a reasonable alternative design, while also maintaining a 10-year repose period for most claims. It adds or clarifies exceptions to that time limit, including concealed defects, government recalls, certain real-property claims, latent respiratory or malignant disease claims, and products advertised as having a useful life longer than 10 years. It also creates a rebuttable presumption against defect or negligence for products that complied with applicable safety standards, were government-approved, or were FDA-approved drugs or medical devices sold in compliance with approval requirements.
Impact
If enacted, SB 292 would expand the scope of recoverable damages in Montana product liability actions by expressly including economic loss, not just personal injury or property damage. It would affect manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and other sellers by broadening potential exposure while preserving several statutory defenses and limitations. The bill would amend section 27-1-719, MCA, and would continue to govern strict-liability claims, seller liability, comparative fault, and the statute of repose for product claims.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill faced resistance in committee. It was moved to table in the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 5-3 vote, and the bill ultimately died in process. The caption indicates the bill was framed as increasing product liability protection for consumers relating to economic harm, suggesting support from those favoring expanded consumer remedies, but the committee outcome indicates enough opposition to stop it from advancing.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be the bill’s expansion of product liability to cover economic harm, which would increase potential liability for sellers and manufacturers. Opponents likely objected to broader exposure, especially given the bill’s retention of strict-liability concepts and its effect on the statute of repose and seller defenses. Supporters likely viewed the measure as a consumer-protection update that better compensates users for losses caused by dangerous products, including non-physical losses. The 5-3 vote to table indicates the committee was divided, with a majority ultimately unwilling to advance the proposal.