2011 Ohio 2353
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Ingle-Barr, Inc. contracted with the state of Ohio through Scioto Valley Local School District Board to renovate Jasper Elementary School in 2002 for $2,683,000, and a second contract for $332,232 in 2004.
- Scioto asserted it was not a party to the contracts and challenged the viability of quasi-contract against a governmental entity.
- Ingle-Barr filed suit on September 6, 2007 alleging breach and unjust enrichment and sought $267,134.44 in damages.
- The trial court initially overruled the motion to dismiss, then treated Scioto’s motion as one for summary judgment and granted it.
- The court held that the contract was between Ingle-Barr and the state of Ohio, not Scioto, and thus Scioto could not be liable as a party to the contracts.
- This appeal followed the trial court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of Scioto.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Scioto Valley is a party to the contracts and liable for breach. | Ingle-Barr argues Scioto is a party through its board and cannot be dismissed. | Scioto contends it is not a contracting party; the contracts are between Ingle-Barr and the state of Ohio. | Yes; Scioto is not a party; contract is with the state. |
| Whether unjust enrichment can support recovery against Scioto given express contracts. | Ingle-Barr seeks recovery under quasi-contract because express contracts exist. | Quasi-contract unjust enrichment does not apply when an express contract covers the subject matter. | Unjust enrichment claim not cognizable; dismiss. |
Key Cases Cited
- Broadnax v. Greene Credit Serv., 118 Ohio App.3d 881 (Ohio App. Dist. 1997) (summary judgment de novo review standard cited)
- Coventry Twp. v. Ecker, 101 Ohio App.3d 38 (Ohio App. Dist. 1995) (de novo review and Civ.R. 56 guidance)
- Maust v. Bank One Columbus, N.A., 83 Ohio App.3d 103 (Ohio App. Dist. 1992) (summary judgment standards)
- Hicks v. Leffler, 119 Ohio App.3d 424 (Ohio App. Dist. 1997) (summary judgment burden shifting to nonmoving party)
- Dillon v. Med. Ctr. Hosp., 98 Ohio App.3d 510 (Ohio App. Dist. 1993) (case law on summary judgment application)
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (Ohio 1998) (standard for summary judgment review)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (Ohio 1978) (foundational Civ.R. 56 principles)
- Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421 (Ohio 1997) (burden-shifting under Civ.R. 56)
- Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (Ohio 1988) (Civ.R. 56 burden and summary judgment standard)
- National Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Ray, 117 Ohio St.13 (Ohio 1927) (contract interpretation and agency attribution)
- Ingle-Barr, Inc. v. E. Local School Dist. Bd., 2011-Ohio-584 (Ohio 2011) (precedent affirming dismissal against state-related contracts)