Clarkwestern Dietrich Bldg. Sys., L.L.C. v. Certified Steel Stud Assn., Inc.
2017 Ohio 2713
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- ClarkDietrich (manufacturer of nonstructural steel framing) developed a G40-equivalent coating called G40EQ, not listed in the IBC tables, and sold at lower cost; competitors formed Certified Steel Stud Association (CSSA) and published a warning labeling G40EQ noncompliant and inferior.
- CSSA distributed a publication to industry participants asserting (among other things) that G40EQ does not comply with IBC, is effectively "paint," is tested less rigorously, and that ClarkDietrich secretly substitutes G40EQ for G40 on jobs.
- ClarkDietrich sued CSSA for deceptive trade practices, unfair competition, defamation, disparagement, and civil conspiracy; after summary-judgment rulings narrowing issues, a nine-week jury trial resulted in a $49 million verdict for ClarkDietrich ($43 million against CSSA).
- CSSA appealed the denial of its summary-judgment motion (arguing the statements were nonactionable opinion) and the trial court’s denial of judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or a new trial (challenging admissibility of expert testimony and other evidentiary rulings).
- The appellate court reviewed whether the publication’s statements were verifiable facts or protected opinion and whether trial evidentiary rulings required JNOV or a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CSSA's publication asserted verifiable facts or protected opinions | Publication made factual, verifiable statements (e.g., noncompliance, substitution) that harmed ClarkDietrich | Statements were opinion and interpretation of IBC and thus protected by First Amendment | Court held statements were sufficiently factual and verifiable, not protected opinion; summary judgment denial affirmed |
| Whether summary judgment should have been granted on First Amendment grounds | ClarkDietrich replied that publication contained provably false factual assertions | CSSA argued the publication was opinion, so summary judgment should be granted | Court applied totality test (language, verifiability, context, broader context) and found factual assertions; no summary judgment for CSSA |
| Whether exclusion/limitation of CSSA expert testimony on IBC interpretation required JNOV or new trial | ClarkDietrich argued jury had sufficient evidence; outcome not dependent on excluded expert testimony | CSSA argued exclusion prevented it from defending code-compliance issues and required new trial/JNOV | Court found CSSA failed to preserve some objections (no proffer) and that jury received ample fact-witness testimony; no abuse of discretion; JNOV/new trial denied |
| Whether jury verdict could stand absent a specific interrogatory on code compliance | ClarkDietrich noted the jury decided falsity of publication as a whole, not discrete code-interpretation question | CSSA contended verdict rested on excluded expert ultimate-issue testimony concerning code compliance | Court held interrogatories did not ask code compliance; evidence permitted jury to decide; no basis for JNOV/new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) (statements framed as opinion may still imply verifiable facts and be actionable)
- Vail v. The Plain Dealer Publishing Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 279 (1995) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for distinguishing fact from opinion)
- Condit v. Clermont Cty. Review, 110 Ohio App.3d 755 (12th Dist. 1996) (application of the opinion/fact test)
- Bross v. Smith, 80 Ohio App.3d 246 (12th Dist. 1992) (defamatory statements must be sufficiently factual to be proved true or false)