Revilo Tyluka, L.L.C. v. Simon Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp.
193 Ohio App. 3d 535
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Revilo Tyluka, L.L.C. sued Simon Roofing & Sheet Metal for breach of contract, negligence, warranty, and fraudulent inducement over a roof replacement at Revilo's Cleveland facility.
- A bench trial was held; the court found the replacement roof complied with the Ohio Basic Building Code but had deficiencies and awarded Revilo $57,500, offset against Revilo’s balance, with Revilo owing $53,593 plus interest.
- The trial court interpreted Section 1510.1 of the code to allow either a 2% slope or positive roof drainage, concluding the roof had positive drainage and did not require slope.
- Revilo appealed, arguing the code required either a 2% slope or positive drainage but contended for an alternative interpretation that the replacement roof must have slope unless the original roof had positive drainage; Revilo waived this argument, but the court addressed it and ultimately did not reverse on this basis.
- The court found the roof had positive drainage, noting some remaining water could be mitigated by four additional drains; Revilo challenged the remedy as inadequate and challenged the lack of specific addressing of fastener compliance, both of which the appellate court reviewed.
- On cross-appeal, Simon Roofing challenged damages related to decking and aluminized coating; the court upheld most damages but remanded for a precise redetermination of the four additional drains’ cost.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the roof complies with the code's slope/positive drainage requirement | Revilo: roof must have 2% slope or positive drainage; contract adheres to code. | Simon Roofing: roof may comply via either slope or drainage; court should honor contract as interpreted. | Roof had positive drainage; no slope needed. |
| Waiver and preservation of Revilo's alternative code interpretation | Revilo advanced alternative interpretation post-trial. | Trial strategy and waiver prevent new theory on appeal. | Waiver barred Revilo's new interpretation on appeal. |
| Remedy for standing water; whether four additional drains were an abuse of discretion | New drains insufficient; roof lacking slope requires remonstrance. | Positive drainage with added drains suffices under the code. | Four additional drains was a permissible remedy; remanded for drain-cost calculation. |
| Whether trial court abused discretion regarding expert testimony and fasteners | Experts supported insufficient fasteners per manufacturer specs. | Court properly weighed conflicting expert testimony; lack of documentation. | No abuse; trial court implicitly found Revilo failed to prove fastener inadequacy. |
| Damage awards on decking and aluminized coating; cross-appeal regarding drains | Damages miscalculated; coating failure and decking replacement warrant different figures. | Awards supported by contract and testimony; any miscalculation should be corrected on remand. | Damages largely sustained; remanded solely for four-drain calculation; other damages upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (1984) (manifest-weight standard of review for bench trials)
- State ex rel. Gutierrez v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Elections, 65 Ohio St.3d 175 (1992) (cannot change theory of case on appeal)
- Republic Steel Corp. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 175 Ohio St. 179 (1963) (reviewing inconsistent arguments on appeal)
- Pang v. Minch, 53 Ohio St.3d 186 (1990) (trial court discretion in expert-related rulings)
- Fostoria v. Ohio Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn., 106 Ohio St.3d 194 (2005) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)