History
  • No items yet
midpage
J. Bowers Constr. Co., Inc. v. Gilbert
18 N.E.3d 770
Ohio Ct. App.
2014
Read the full case

Background

  • In Sept. 2009 the Gilberts’ home flooded from a burst pipe; firefighters recommended J. Bowers Construction (Bowers) for emergency mitigation. Edward Gilbert signed an "Access & Authorization for Emergency & Temporary Repairs" and Bowers performed emergency dry-out work (about $9,000), which was paid.
  • Travelers Insurance prepared and revised Xactimate estimates for restoration; over ~18 months Bowers coordinated repairs with Travelers and Edward Gilbert, who approved credits and upgrades and paid $65,000 to Bowers out of disbursements he received from Travelers.
  • Travelers’ final written estimate totaled $132,451.98 (Feb. 2011). On Mar. 2, 2011 Gilbert signed an itemized sheet, tendered $6,624.89, and Bowers believed the remaining $67,451.98 was still owed by Travelers.
  • Bowers sued the Gilberts (Aug. 2011) for breach of contract and quantum meruit; the Gilberts counterclaimed alleging fraud, property damage by workers, and use of substandard materials. After a bench trial the trial court awarded Bowers $67,451.98 based on quantum meruit.
  • On appeal the Ninth District affirmed: it concluded there was a contract only for emergency mitigation but not for the subsequent repairs, and upheld the quantum meruit award because the Gilberts accepted and retained the benefit and Gilbert knowingly participated in and approved work and credits.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (Gilberts) Defendant's Argument (Bowers) Held
Whether court could award quantum meruit after finding an express contract Court erred because an express contract existed and quantum meruit is inapplicable when an enforceable contract governs the same subject Even if an emergency contract existed, no enforceable contract covered the subsequent repairs; quantum meruit applies for those unpaid services Court: Trial court erred to the extent it found a contract for non-emergency repairs, but award on quantum meruit stands as harmless error because no contract covered the repairs and Bowers proved acceptance of benefit
Sufficiency of evidence as to reasonable value of services Bowers failed to prove the reasonable value of materials and labor for quantum meruit Bowers relied on Travelers’ Xactimate estimate, Hayes’ estimator testimony, the itemized credits/upgrades signed by Gilbert, and payments made Court: Evidence was sufficient—Travelers’ Xactimate estimate and Hayes’ testimony provided competent evidence of reasonable value
Whether judgment could be entered against Edward Gilbert (ownership issue) Gilbert is not the titled owner; Bowers did not confer a benefit on him personally Gilbert signed authorization, actively managed approvals, received insurance funds, and accepted benefit by living in and directing repairs Court: Gilbert received and knowingly accepted the benefit despite not being on title; judgment against him is proper
Whether Travelers was an indispensable party Travelers handled estimates and payments, so its absence prevents complete relief No contract between Bowers and Travelers was shown; Travelers’ absence does not preclude effective judgment between Bowers and the Gilberts Court: Travelers was not indispensable; its absence did not prevent effective relief or prejudice the parties

Key Cases Cited

  • Kostelnik v. Helper, 96 Ohio St.3d 1 (definition and essential elements of contract)
  • Aultman Hosp. Assn. v. Community Mut. Ins. Co., 46 Ohio St.3d 51 (quantum meruit arises when benefit is conferred without just compensation)
  • Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence in civil cases)
  • Minster Farmers Coop. Exchange Co., Inc. v. Meyer, 117 Ohio St.3d 459 (no meeting of the minds defeats contract formation)
  • Building Industry Consultants, Inc. v. 3M Parkway, Inc., 182 Ohio App.3d 39 (quantum meruit elements and alternative pleading)
  • In re Estate of Kirkland, 175 Ohio App.3d 73 (quantum meruit described as equitable remedy to prevent unjust enrichment)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: J. Bowers Constr. Co., Inc. v. Gilbert
Court Name: Ohio Court of Appeals
Date Published: Aug 20, 2014
Citation: 18 N.E.3d 770
Docket Number: 27044
Court Abbreviation: Ohio Ct. App.