2012 Ohio 5074
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Rid-All Exterminating sued CMHA for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, defamation, fraud, and disparate treatment.
- CMHA is a political subdivision; Rid-All sought to pierce immunity on several counts.
- Trial court denied CMHA's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss without opinion; CMHA appeals under R.C. 2744.02(C).
- Court applies de novo review to dismissal decisions and accepts factual allegations as true for purposes of immunity analysis.
- Ohio Supreme Court holdings treat operation of a public housing authority as a governmental function; extermination/maintenance relates to governmental operation.
- Promissory estoppel and other claims arise in the context of CMHA performing governmental functions, triggering immunity absent valid exceptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CMHA is immune to promissory estoppel claim. | Rid-All contends promissory estoppel survives immunity. | CMHA argues immunity applies; Hortman controls. | Immunity applies; promissory estoppel claim dismissed. |
| Whether defamation claim is barred by governmental immunity. | Rid-All asserts defamation actionable despite immunity. | CMHA asserts immunity for statements made in governmental function. | Defamation claim dismissed; immune. |
| Whether fraud claim is actionable against a political subdivision. | Rid-All asserts fraud exception exists to immunity. | There is no immunity exception for intentional fraud against governmental function. | Fraud claim dismissed; no applicable exception. |
| Whether disparate treatment claim defeats immunity. | Rid-All characterizes as minority-rights claim under Equal Protection. | Claim improperly pleaded; 2744.09(E) does not apply absent statutory violation; no similarly situated comparison. | Dismissed; no applicable exception; immunity preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Lorain Metro. Housing Auth., 121 Ohio St.3d 455 (Ohio 2009) (governmental function; operation of housing authority immune)
- Hortman v. Miamisburg, 110 Ohio St.3d 194 (Ohio 2006) (equitable and promissory estoppel inapplicable against political subdivision)
- Hubbard v. Cleveland Metro. School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 195 Ohio App.3d 708 (8th Dist. 2011) (immunity and governmental functions control defamation analysis)
- Price v. Austintown Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 178 Ohio App.3d 256 (Ohio 2008) (defamation/immune analysis in public entity context)
- Sampson v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth., 188 Ohio App.3d 250 (Ohio 2010) (discusses 2744.09(B) immunity exceptions in employee context; not applicable here)
- Sampson v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth. (aff’d opinion), 131 Ohio St.3d 418 (Ohio 2012) (aff’d; clarifies scope of immunity exceptions for tort claims)
- LeRoy v. Allen, Yurasek & Merklin, 114 Ohio St.3d 323 (Ohio 2007) (standard for ruling on immunity and pleadings)