Claris, Ltd. v. Hotel Dev. Servs., L.L.C.
104 N.E.3d 1076
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Claris contracted with Hotel Development Services, LLC (HDS) in 2005 to build a 4‑story, 122‑room Candlewood Suites; construction completed in 2006.
- Exterior walls used EIFS (stucco‑like cladding) over OSB sheathing and a corrugated Tyvek StuccoWrap water‑resistive barrier; PTAC units sit beneath windows.
- Beginning in July 2013, water intrusion occurred in the "28 bank" rooms; removal of EIFS revealed OSB deterioration and moisture concentrated beneath PTAC units.
- PSI (Claris' expert) identified multiple deficiencies (no sheet‑metal through‑wall flashing, failed/absent sealant, EIFS cracks, improper flexible flashing laps, insufficient WRB laps) and observed water damage at most openings.
- HDS’s expert attributed damage to failed sealant and Claris’s lack of maintenance, and testified water could drain through base openings; HDS moved for directed verdict arguing Claris failed to prove causation.
- The trial jury awarded Claris $631,200; trial court also ruled insurer Westfield partially liable; on appeal the court reversed and remanded with instructions to enter directed verdict for HDS.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claris proved breach of contract caused water damage (causation/sufficiency) | Claris argued multiple construction deficiencies caused damage and experts showed lack of drainage/flashings | HDS argued Claris failed to present expert causation linking any breach (other than missing flashing) as a probable/substantial cause; some causes (sealant) were excluded by experts | Reversed: evidence insufficient. Expert testimony did not state probable causation and did not allocate responsibility so breach (missing flashing) was not shown to be a substantial factor in the loss; directed verdict for HDS required. |
| Whether expert opinion met probability standard for causation | Surlej identified deficiencies and water exposure but did not state which deficiency probably caused damage | HDS emphasized need for expert to opine to reasonable degree of probability and allocate causal weight | Held: Surlej’s testimony speculative—failed to state probable cause and thus insufficient under Evid.R. 702 and Ohio causation precedent. |
| Whether use of unlisted EIFS manufacturer (Parex) established causation | Claris argued HDS breached specs by using Parex and that exclusion implies a defect causing damage | HDS argued breach alone is insufficient; Claris must show Parex had a feature that caused damage | Held: Rejected Claris’ presumption; no evidence explaining why Parex was excluded or how it caused damage, so causation not proved. |
| Insurer Westfield’s coverage allocations and exclusions (EIFS & professional services) | Westfield argued exclusions barred coverage or allocations should be cumulative | Claris/HDS argued jury’s allocation applied concurrently | Held: Court did not address insurer issues on the merits because reversal on causation rendered them moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 95 Ohio St.3d 512 (2002) (directed‑verdict standard and de novo review of sufficiency)
- Wagner v. Roche Laboratories, 77 Ohio St.3d 116 (1996) (distinguishing sufficiency from weight of the evidence)
- Malone v. Courtyard by Marriott Ltd. Partnership, 74 Ohio St.3d 440 (1996) (directed‑verdict principles)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (plaintiff must produce some evidence on every element when facing directed verdict motion)
- Lucarell v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 152 Ohio St.3d 453 (2018) (elements of breach‑of‑contract claim)
- Stinson v. England, 69 Ohio St.3d 451 (1994) (expert must state causation opinions in terms of probability)
- Shumaker v. Oliver B. Cannon & Sons, Inc., 28 Ohio St.3d 367 (1986) (expert testimony that is speculative is inadmissible)