Emergency Med. Transport, Inc. v. Massillon
2011 Ohio 446
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- EMT, a private ambulance provider in Massillon, entered a rotation with the City’s dispatch to transport to local hospitals.
- In 2007 the rotation was curtailed in favor of a competing ambulance company, prompting EMT to sue the City in 2007.
- The parties executed a Mutual Release of All Claims; the Release provided EMT would be included in the rotation at 50%.
- In 2009 the City passed ordinances eliminating 50% of EMT’s ambulance calls, prompting EMT to sue for breach of contract and related claims.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the City, holding the Release void for uncertainty and suggesting EMT refile its prior suit.
- The court of appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings, addressing contract duration and extrinsic evidence considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Release is void for uncertainty | EMT: ambiguity in duration exists, requiring extrinsic evidence. | City: Release is unambiguous and has no durational term; void for lack of term. | Release uncertainty questions summary judgment; remanded. |
| Whether missing durational term can be supplied by extrinsic evidence | parole evidence should be allowed to determine duration. | terms should be read from four corners; no clear duration. | Ambiguity requires factual inquiry; summary judgment inappropriate. |
| Whether governmental immunity attaches to EMT’s contract claims | N/A | Immunity bars tort claims but not contract/declaratory relief; court should grant immunity. | Immunity not applicable to EMT’s contract claims; cross-appeal rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Inland Refuse Transfer Co. v. Browning-Ferris Industries of Ohio, Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 321 (Ohio 1984) (absence of durational term may require evidence to supply term)
- Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 (Ohio 1987) (summary judgment standard and review of evidence)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (burden-shifting framework for summary judgment)
- Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421 (Ohio 1997) (clear and convincing standard; evidence must show no genuine issue)
- Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co., 53 Ohio St.2d 241 (Ohio 1978) (contract interpretation governed by the intent of the parties)
- Blosser v. Enderlin, 113 Ohio St.2d 121 (Ohio 1986) (extrinsic evidence when contract language is unclear)