JAG Imperial, L.L.C. v. Literski
2012 Ohio 2863
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Literskis contracted JAG Imperial to repair their roof for $10,325; project ended up exceeding estimates by 2.66 squares, leading to a $731.50 extra charge.
- Contract required written orders for any deviations involving extra costs; oral agreements or parol evidence were not allowed to supplement the contract.
- JAG attempted to obtain the adjuster’s information to submit a supplemental claim; Literski blocked provision of the adjuster’s contact details.
- Literski alleged a separate, unsigned interior-work agreement with JAG for $500 if Trejo failed to perform; JAG’s witness did not sign that agreement, and terms were unclear.
- Trial court found no interior-work contract and rejected counterclaims, while awarding JAG $8,556.50 including the extra $731.50.
- Appellate court reversed in part, holding the extra $731.50 was improper under the contract, and remanded to enter judgment for $7,825 plus interest; otherwise affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did JAG’s $731.50 extra charge violate the written-order requirement? | JAG argues it followed contract processes and was entitled to the extra. | Literski contends extra work without written order was outside the contract. | Yes; reversal of $731.50 award; remand for $7,825 plus interest. |
| Was there a contract for interior work and did Literski breach it? | JAG claims no enforceable interior-work contract existed. | Literski asserts an oral/unsigned agreement existed. | No contract proved; counterclaims not sustained; weight of the evidence supported trial court's finding. |
| Was Literski's warranty claim proven by a preponderance of the evidence? | Warranty claim not adequately supported. | Literski contends workmanship caused leak. | Warranty claim not proved; no prejudice from Cox’s testimony; claim denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Warmack v. Arnold, 195 Ohio App.3d 760 (2011-Ohio-5463) (contract interpretation and de novo review of clear terms)
- Aultman Hosp. Assn. v. Community Mut. Ins. Co., 46 Ohio St.3d 51 (1989) (contract interpretation governs when plain language clear)
- Galmish v. Cicchini, 90 Ohio St.3d 22 (2000) (parol evidence rule limits prior or contemporaneous agreements)
- Mantia v. House, 178 Ohio App.3d 763 (2008-Ohio-5374) (essential terms for services contract; determine breach and remedy)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179 (Ohio 2012) (manifest-weight standard for appellate review)
- SST Bearing Corp. v. Twin City Fan Companies, Ltd., 2012-Ohio-2490 (1st Dist. 2012) (clarifies manifest-weight review as per Eastley)
- Oglebay Norton Co. v. Armco, 52 Ohio St.3d 232 (1990) (manifest-weight standard applicable to contract disputes)