2019 Ohio 1687
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Frank purchased a large ceramic fountain and hired WNB Group, d.b.a. The Ray Hamilton Moving Company (RH), to transport and install it at his home for about $2,000 after a phone agreement with RH owner Jay Wallace.
- Before the hire, Wallace did not discuss RH’s insurance for this move; Frank had seen RH’s website advertising “white-glove” handling and previously (in an unrelated job) been told RH had “full coverage.”
- During unloading RH employee Randy Jackson dropped the crate, damaging the fountain. Jackson apologized, told Frank RH would pay to repair it, and gave a job form noting the drop and listing RH’s insurance deductible/limit.
- Frank paid RH for the move the next day after being reassured RH had insurance; RH’s insurer later denied the claim, RH refused to pay, and Frank paid about $27,000 to repair the fountain and sued alleging negligence and violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA).
- The trial court granted RH summary judgment on the CSPA claim; Frank appealed. The appellate court reversed as to a deceptive-misrepresentation claim and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RH’s failure to disclose the scope of its insurance before hiring was deceptive under the CSPA | Frank: nondisclosure induced him to hire RH; silence about limitations was deceptive | RH: Frank never asked; no pre-hire misrepresentation; website was silent; prior vague comment unrelated | Silence was not deceptive here; no reasonable reliance shown — summary judgment for RH affirmed on this point |
| Whether RH’s post-move promises to pay for repairs (and assurances of insurance) were deceptive under the CSPA | Frank: Jackson’s immediate promise and next-day assurance induced payment and was deceptive when RH later refused to pay | RH: no intent to deceive; statements incidental or immaterial to transaction | Promises were actionable as deceptive practices; reasonable factfinder could find inducement — summary judgment reversed on this point |
| Whether RH’s conduct constituted an unconscionable practice (pattern, scienter, or stalling) | Frank: false promises, negligence, and refusal to pay show unconscionable conduct or stalling | RH: no evidence of scienter; one-time negligence is not a pattern; insurer denial was unknown to RH | No unconscionability shown: plaintiff failed to prove RH’s scienter or a pattern/stalling; claim on this theory fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Comer v. Risko, 833 N.E.2d 712 (Ohio 2005) (standards for de novo review of summary judgment)
- Einhorn v. Ford Motor Co., 548 N.E.2d 933 (Ohio 1990) (CSPA is remedial and liberally construed)
- Frey v. Vin Devers, Inc., 608 N.E.2d 796 (Ohio Ct. App.) (definition of deceptive practice under CSPA)
- Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 834 N.E.2d 791 (Ohio 2005) (factors for unconscionability and supplier manipulation of consumer understanding)