2018 Ohio 5332
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In Feb 2017 USA Insulation contracted to insulate Ruby Kumar’s exterior walls for $6,213.96 (senior discount applied) financed by an interest-free Wells Fargo loan; USA was paid by Wells Fargo.
- USA Insulation performed the work in March 2017; Kumar complained of cold spots and hired third parties to perform infrared diagnostics, spending about $550.
- USA sent a service representative on March 20, 2017, who identified a few spots needing follow-up; Kumar initially refused to schedule further service.
- A service visit occurred in March 2018 (after suit), producing a signed service ticket listing remaining work (estimated at 3–4 hours; about 5–10% of the job). USA stated it would return to complete any voids.
- Kumar sued in small claims (March 6, 2018) seeking approximately $6,000 for incomplete and fraudulent work; trial was to the court, Kumar proceeded pro se, and the court entered judgment for USA Insulation.
- The court found Kumar failed to prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence; on appeal she argued (1) the court wrongly required proof of out-of-pocket payments to Wells Fargo for damages and (2) USA’s admission of incomplete performance established breach.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether USA’s alleged admission of incomplete performance established breach of contract | Kumar: USA admitted incomplete performance and therefore is liable for breach | USA: Any remaining work was minor (substantial performance) and further completion was prevented by Kumar’s refusal to allow access | Court: No breach — evidence showed substantial performance (only 5–10% remained) and further work was impeded by Kumar |
| Whether plaintiff was required to present proof of payments to Wells Fargo to establish contract damages | Kumar: Court improperly required evidence of her payments to Wells Fargo to measure damages | USA: The court reasonably probed payments to determine amounts paid to USA and whether damages were owed; plaintiff failed to prove breach or quantify damages | Court: No error — plaintiff failed to establish breach and did not meet burden to prove damages with reasonable certainty; general verdict presumed correct absent requested findings of fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Luntz v. Stern, 135 Ohio St. 225 (1939) (when facts are undisputed, whether they constitute performance or breach is a question of law)
- Cleveland Neighborhood Health Servs., Inc. v. St. Clair Builders, Inc., 64 Ohio App.3d 639 (1989) (substantial performance doctrine; slight omissions do not always constitute breach)
- Ashley v. Henahan, 56 Ohio St. 559 (1897) (substantial performance entitles party to payment absent willful omission)
- Kichler’s, Inc. v. Persinger, 24 Ohio App.2d 124 (1970) (minor departures, omissions and inadvertencies should be disregarded under substantial performance)
- Lucarell v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 152 Ohio St.3d 453 (2018) (breach defined as failure without legal excuse to perform when performance is due)
- Schulke Radio Prod., Ltd. v. Midwestern Broadcasting Co., 6 Ohio St.3d 436 (1983) (damages aim to place injured party in position they would have occupied absent breach)