2018 Ohio 1728
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiffs Ashley Bland and Laurence Lasky sued Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., alleging Bland’s 2009 Toyota Scion consumed excessive oil and invoking a "secret unannounced recall" under which Toyota was allegedly replacing engines.
- Bland initially sued Toyota Motor North America, later dismissed that defendant and added Toyota Motor Sales and added Lasky as a plaintiff.
- Toyota moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing the warranty claim was time-barred and that no privity existed; plaintiffs argued alternatively they had pleaded breach of implied contract (six-year statute of limitations) based on the secret recall.
- The trial court dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice, concluding the breach-of-warranty claim was time barred and that the complaint failed to plead the elements of an implied-contract claim (no offer by Toyota, no acceptance by Bland, no performance or resulting damages).
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the complaint (particularly ¶13) adequately alleged an implied contract and that the trial court improperly assumed a written contract was required.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo and affirmed: the amended complaint did not allege the existence of a contract, plaintiff’s acceptance or damages from a breach, and the recall allegation alone did not establish an implied contract.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of breach-of-implied-contract claim | Bland alleged a secret unannounced recall constituting Toyota’s promise to replace engines; paragraph 13 requests installation — this pleads an implied contract | Complaint fails to plead essential elements of contract: offer by Toyota, acceptance by Bland, performance/forbearance, and damages | Affirmed: Complaint does not allege a contract, plaintiff’s acceptance, or damages; allegation of a dealer telling plaintiff about a recall is insufficient to state an implied-contract claim |
| Whether trial court required a written contract | Trial court supposedly assumed a written exhibit was needed; plaintiffs argue implied contract can be nonwritten | Toyota notes plaintiffs attached no contract and failed to plead the elements for an implied contract | Affirmed: Court’s remark about lack of exhibit only defined scope of review; dismissal was based on failure to plead contract elements, not on a demand for a written contract |
| Appealability of dismissal without prejudice | Plaintiffs appealed the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal even though the trial court labeled it "without prejudice" | Toyota did not contest appealability; appellate court noted such dismissals can be appealed when plaintiff cannot cure pleading defects | Court proceeded on merits after presuming plaintiffs could not replead; affirmed dismissal on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (standard for Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal)
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190 (complaint must be construed in plaintiff's favor; factual allegations presumed true)
- Grover v. Bartsch, 170 Ohio App.3d 188 (de novo review of Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal)
- Ebbets Partners, Ltd. v. Day, 171 Ohio App.3d 20 (generally dismissals without prejudice under Civ.R. 41(B) are not appealable; exception discussed)
- Cuyahoga Cty. Hospitals v. Price, 64 Ohio App.3d 410 (elements and formation of implied contract)
- Casey v. Reidy, 180 Ohio App.3d 615 (a trial court's self-labeling of an order as final does not control appealability)