Landis v. William Fannin Builders, Inc.
951 N.E.2d 1078
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Landis and Weidman hired Fannin Builders to construct a custom home in Pleasantville, Ohio under a May 4, 2004 contract for $356,750.
- Exterior Tl-11 siding was chosen with a semitransparent Cabot Allagash stain after assurances Fannin had experience with this siding and stain.
- 84 Lumber underordered siding; PACE stained the excess siding sheets; one batch turned a darker shade.
- Weidman observed the color variance and was told by Klinger a second coat would blend the colors, which proved inadequate.
- Siding was installed with random darker and lighter pieces, creating a patchwork appearance; a second coat of stain was applied after spring 2005 delays.
- In August 2005, a letter agreement purportedly shifted color-liability to the builder, and Landis signed acknowledging terms; replacement siding was delivered in September 2005 but was yellow rather than green, leading to further disputes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Fannin breach the contract by providing nonuniform siding? | Landis/Weidman contend patchwork siding breached workmanlike standards. | Fannin argues replacement work cured initial defects and that there was no breach of implied duty. | Yes, breach found; nonuniform color breached implied workmanlike duty. |
| May the limited warranty bar recovery by cure rights or limit remedies? | No reliance on the warranty to bar damages; the contract duty stands apart from warranty. | Right to cure under the one-year limited warranty limits recovery if cure attempted. | No bar to recovery; limited warranty did not preclude damages for breach. |
| Proper damages measure for construction breach with aesthetic impact? | Damages should reflect the cure cost to restore the rustic look. | Damages should be limited to diminution in value under economic-waste rule. | Damages awarded based on cost to replace siding; reasonable given the custom aesthetic. |
| Effect of the August 2, 2005 letter agreement on indemnification and liability toward 84 Lumber? | 84 Lumber should bear liability for color-related issues under the agreement. | Under the agreement 84 Lumber shifts color-liability to the builder; still liable for damages caused by its actions. | 84 Lumber cannot escape liability; Fannin assumed liability under the letter agreement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kishmarton v. William Bailey Constr., Inc., 93 Ohio St.3d 226 (Ohio Supreme) (implied duty to perform work in a workmanlike manner)
- Jones v. Centex Homes, 189 Ohio App.3d 668 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010) (reasonableness of construction standards; implied duties)
- Jarupan v. Hanna, 173 Ohio App.3d 284 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007) (implied duty to perform workmanlike; credibility of expert testimony)
- Hansel v. Creative Concrete & Masonry Constr. Co., 148 Ohio App.3d 53 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002) (measure of damages for defective construction; repair cost guidance)
- Martin v. Design Constr. Servs., Inc., 121 Ohio St.3d 66 (Ohio Supreme) (reasonableness standard governing damages; not automatic use of diminution in value)
- Ohio Collieries v. Cocke, 107 Ohio St. 238 (Ohio Supreme) (damages for temporary injury to real property; restoration cost vs. diminution in value)