2011 Ohio 3669
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- NuFloor Systems, division of Technical Construction Specialties, Inc., sues Precision Environmental Co. for unjust enrichment, equitable contribution, and equitable indemnification related to a library flooring project in Akron.
- The project involved The Ruhlin Company as general contractor and Corporate Floors, Inc. as prime flooring contractor; NuFloor installed floor underlayment and Precision removed defective Super-Flo Top.
- Super-Flo Top proved defective and was replaced with Sonoflow; Precision’s removal allegedly damaged the library building.
- Interpleader action was filed by Corporate Floors in 2004 to determine payment liability; NuFloor counterclaimed against Corporate Floors.
- Arbitration between Corporate Floors and NuFloor occurred in 2006; a consent judgment released interpleader funds to Precision and preserved NuFloor’s right to sue Precision; NuFloor filed suit against Precision in 2008 seeking the three claims; summary judgment was granted to Precision in 2010, which NuFloor appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reverses in part, affirms in part, and remands for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was Civ.R. 56 evidence to support summary judgment on all claims. | NuFloor argues Precision lacked Civ.R. 56(C) evidence. | Precision asserted admissible evidence, but much relied on uncertified documents. | NuFloor’s first assignment overruled; some properly certified materials supported summary judgment. |
| Whether Precision was entitled to summary judgment on NuFloor’s claim for equitable indemnification. | NuFloor contends a relationship existed that supports indemnification. | Precision contends no such relationship; relied on unauthenticated materials. | Second assignment sustained; no proper record evidence to negate indemnification. |
| Whether Precision was entitled to summary judgment on NuFloor’s unjust enrichment claim. | NuFloor conferred a benefit to Precision and should be compensated. | Precision argued no benefit and relied on unauthenticated materials. | Third assignment sustained; trial court erred in granting unjust enrichment summary judgment. |
| Whether collateral estoppel should bar this action. | Not applicable due to lack of identical issues/parties established by proper evidence. | Arbitration and interpleader could preclude this action. | Cross-assignment overruled; collateral estoppel not established by admissible evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (establishing Dresher burden for summary judgment; moving party must point to record evidence)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (Ohio 1977) (summary judgment standard; three-part test)
- Hambleton v. R.G. Barry Corp., 12 Ohio St.3d 179 (Ohio 1984) (unjust enrichment elements and burdens on proof)
- Goodson v. McDonough Power Equipment, Inc., 2 Ohio St.3d 193 (Ohio 1983) (collateral estoppel principles require identical parties and issues)
- JRC Holdings, Inc. v. Samsel Servs. Co., 166 Ohio App.3d 328 (Ohio App. 2006) (evidentiary issues in considering attachments to summary judgment)