New Riegel Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Bueherer Group Architecture & Eng. Inc.
2017 Ohio 8521
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- New Riegel Local School District (the School) sued contractors and designers over alleged design/construction defects (moisture/condensation) in a school built under the Ohio Classroom Facilities Assistance Program; occupancy began December 19, 2002, and the State issued a Certificate of Completion on March 3, 2004.
- Defendants included general trades contractor Studer-Obringer, Inc. (SOI), roofing contractor Charles Construction Services, Inc. (CCS), the Buehrer Group (architect/engineer), and Ohio Farmers Insurance Company (OFIC) as SOI’s surety.
- The School pleaded breach of contract claims (contractor failure to perform in a workmanlike manner); defendants raised, among other defenses, Ohio’s 10-year statute of repose (R.C. 2305.131).
- Trial court granted judgment on the pleadings for SOI, CCS, and OFIC based on the statute of repose and dismissed those parties; the School appealed.
- The Third District reversed the dismissals, holding that under Ohio Supreme Court precedent the statute of repose does not bar breach-of-contract claims as pled, and reinstated claims against SOI, CCS, and OFIC (as surety).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2305.131 (10-year statute of repose for improvements to real property) bars the School’s breach-of-contract claims | School: statute of repose applies only to tort claims; Kocisko stands for that rule, so contract claims survive | Defendants: statute bars any action for damages arising from defective improvements more than ten years after substantial completion | Court: Under Ohio Supreme Court precedent (Kocisko), the statute of repose does not apply to breach-of-contract claims as pled; judgment on the pleadings was improper |
| Whether dismissal of the contractor (SOI) requires dismissal of its surety (OFIC) | School: bond claim against surety remains if principal remains liable | OFIC: once SOI was dismissed, OFIC’s liability ceased and it should be dismissed | Court: Because dismissal of SOI was erroneous, OFIC’s dismissal was also erroneous; OFIC remains a party |
| Whether the statute of repose is inapplicable because contracts were with the State | School: contracts entered with the State, so general limitation rules do not apply | Defendants: repose applies irrespective of State involvement | Court: Moot — court resolved main issue by finding statute inapplicable to breach-of-contract claims; this argument need not be decided here |
| Whether the School had authority to sue in the State’s name | School: authority to bring suit in name of State for OSFC/State interest | Defendants: challenged standing/authority | Court: Not addressed in this opinion (reserved for another appellate case) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kocisko v. Charles Shutrump & Sons Co., 21 Ohio St.3d 98 (1986) (Ohio Supreme Court held the statute of repose does not bar breach-of-contract claims under the facts presented)
- Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79 (2004) (standard for accepting factual allegations on a motion to dismiss/judgment on the pleadings)