Fabrizi Trucking & Paving Co., Inc. v. Cleveland
2017 Ohio 531
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In July 2012 the City of Cleveland issued an emergency procurement for repair of a broken sewer line; Fabrizi submitted the lowest bid and received a notice to proceed on July 27, 2012.
- A dispute arose about the required backfill: Fabrizi bid and intended to use #304 aggregate fill; the City directed use of low-strength mortar (LSM), which was more expensive.
- Fabrizi completed the work using LSM, sought additional compensation (difference between #304 and LSM), and the City paid only the original bid amount.
- Fabrizi sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, seeking damages and prejudgment interest; a jury awarded Fabrizi $274,116.14 and post-judgment interest from the date of judgment.
- The trial court denied the City’s motions for summary judgment and directed verdict; it later denied Fabrizi’s motion for prejudgment interest without explanation.
- On appeal the Eighth District affirmed denial of summary judgment (finding a factual dispute over specifications and a valid emergency contract) but reversed the denial of prejudgment interest and remanded for a hearing to fix the accrual date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a valid, enforceable contract existed for the emergency work | Fabrizi: a binding contract existed based on bid, specs, City acceptance, and notice to proceed; work began immediately | City: C.C.O. 181.12(b) voids the contract because performance extended beyond the second council meeting after authorization | Held: Contract existed; material facts (specification meaning) for jury; emergency authorization complied with C.C.O. 181.12 |
| Whether the contract required LSM or permitted #304 fill | Fabrizi: specs and an ODOT drawing permitted #304 fill | City: bid package (Cleveland LSM doc) required LSM | Held: Ambiguity existed — interpretation was a jury question (factual issue) rather than a pure legal issue |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying summary judgment/directed verdict for City | Fabrizi: disputed facts precluded summary judgment; trial issues were properly submitted to jury | City: no valid contract and specifications mandated LSM, entitling it to judgment as a matter of law | Held: Denial of summary judgment affirmed; city failed to show no genuine issue of material fact; directed verdict not separately analyzed on appeal |
| Whether Fabrizi was entitled to prejudgment interest as a matter of law | Fabrizi: breach-of-contract judgment entitles it to prejudgment interest under R.C. 1343.03(A) | City: (did not prevail at hearing and did not participate in later prejudgment-interest hearing) | Held: Fabrizi entitled to prejudgment interest as a matter of law; trial court’s denial reversed and remanded to determine accrual date and rate |
Key Cases Cited
- Continental Ins. Co. v. Whittington, 71 Ohio St.3d 150 (error in denying summary judgment is harmless after full trial except where pure legal issue)
- Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216 (construction of clear contract is law; ambiguous contracts present jury questions)
- Royal Elec. Constr. Corp. v. Ohio State Univ., 73 Ohio St.3d 110 (prejudgment interest compensates for time between accrual and judgment; court must determine accrual date and rate)
- Nakoff v. Fairview Gen. Hosp., 118 Ohio App.3d 786 (prejudgment interest merges with damages for purposes of postjudgment interest calculation)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)