midpage
Projects
Sign in to see your projects.
2019 Ohio 2127
Ohio Ct. App.
2019
Read the full case

Background

  • In 2017 Adkinson received bridgework from Alex Bell Dental–Daniel Cobb, DDS, LLC (ABD); a replacement bridge was later installed under a five-year warranty after the first failed.
  • Adkinson requested credit for her inconvenience; ABD contacted her and, after email exchanges about the amount, sent a December 5, 2017 letter enclosing a $230 check and a release stating the sum was "IN FULL SETTLEMENT, ACCORD AND SATISFACTION" for claims arising from treatment between Feb. 15, 2017 and Oct. 10, 2017.
  • Adkinson cashed the $230 check on Dec. 6, 2017. ABD later sent a termination-of-treatment letter effective 30 days after receipt.
  • In June 2018 Adkinson’s replacement bridge broke; she sought $2,023 for out-of-pocket expenses and invoked warranty coverage. ABD rejected the claim as barred by the earlier accord and satisfaction.
  • Adkinson sued for breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranty, and unjust enrichment. The trial court granted summary judgment for ABD finding an accord and satisfaction; Adkinson appealed.
  • The appellate court found the accord and satisfaction applied only to treatment between Feb. 15, 2017 and Oct. 10, 2017 but remanded because a material factual dispute existed about whether the replacement installation occurred on Oct. 18, 2017 (outside the covered interval).

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether an accord and satisfaction extinguished Adkinson's claims Adkinson argued summary judgment was improper because factual dispute exists about the parties' intent and about the treatment dates (final installation Oct. 18, 2017) ABD argued its December 5 letter + cashed check constituted an unequivocal accord and satisfaction releasing all claims for treatment from Feb. 15 to Oct. 10, 2017 Court: Accord and satisfaction valid and bars claims for treatment within Feb. 15–Oct. 10, 2017; but summary judgment improper as to treatment outside that window because ABD failed to prove dates and Civ.R. 8(B) response was inadequate
Whether ABD gave adequate notice that the payment was in full satisfaction Adkinson contended notice/intent issues warranted trial ABD pointed to the express wording in its letter labeling the check "IN FULL SETTLEMENT, ACCORD AND SATISFACTION" Held: Notice language was clear and unambiguous; depositing the check manifested acceptance as to claims within specified dates
Whether there was a bona fide dispute (required safeguard for accord and satisfaction) Adkinson argued issues of dispute and consideration may not support accord for all claims ABD contended the demand was disputed and $230 was consideration to settle disputed claims Held: Accord and satisfaction requires a good-faith dispute; here a dispute existed for the covered period, so consideration sufficed for those claims
Whether ABD met its summary judgment burden on disputed treatment dates Adkinson argued material factual dispute about the final appointment date (Oct. 18) ABD relied on its letter’s date range but submitted no admissible evidence proving the last treatment date was Oct. 10 Held: ABD failed to submit competent Civ.R. 56 evidence to eliminate dispute about treatment dates, so summary judgment cannot bar claims falling outside the specified interval

Key Cases Cited

  • Allen v. R.G. Indus. Supply, 66 Ohio St.3d 229 (Ohio 1993) (establishes elements and safeguards of accord and satisfaction)
  • Kirk Williams Co., Inc. v. Six Indus., Inc., 11 Ohio App.3d 152 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983) (defines "unliquidated demand" in accord-and-satisfaction context)
  • Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (Ohio 1978) (summary judgment standard)
  • Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (Ohio 1998) (standard for summary judgment review)
  • Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (party opposing summary judgment must present evidentiary materials)
  • Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (Ohio 1988) (movant's burden to show absence of genuine dispute)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Adkinson v. Alex Bell Dental-Daniel Cobb, DDS, L.L.C.
Court Name: Ohio Court of Appeals
Date Published: May 31, 2019
Citations: 2019 Ohio 2127; 28282
Docket Number: 28282
Court Abbreviation: Ohio Ct. App.
Log In