2012 Ohio 3994
Ohio Ct. Cl.2012Background
- Stanley Miller Construction Co. sued the State of Ohio and Canton City School District Board of Education for breach of contract, negligence, and unjust enrichment related to the Lehman Middle School project.
- OSFC selected Ruhlin as construction manager; Stanley Miller was prime masonry contractor; project ownership was 77% OSFC and 23% Canton.
- Plaintiff alleged a flawed schedule and Ruhlin interference caused delays and additional costs, including masonry, site work, roofing, sewer, and related costs.
- Stanley Miller submitted a one-page, $1.1 million claim in July 2004 for equitable adjustment; the claim lacked detailed backup and did not follow Article 8 notice/ documentation requirements.
- The trial court on remand found extensive waiver issues and ultimately limited recoveries to Site Work costs of $8,658.35 and interest of $36,074.04; the court held no recoveries for masonry and many other categories.
- Judgment entry on remand and appeal: final judgment awarded $44,757.39 against Canton and OSFC jointly, with Canton prevailing on the third-party claim; costs against OSFC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stanley Miller waived Article 8.1.1 notice requirements | Stanley Miller contends it complied with Article 8.1.1 via notice to Ruhlin within 10 days and subsequent documentation. | OSFC argues strict Article 8.1.1 compliance was required and not waived system-wide. | Waiver did not apply to masonry except for site-work exception; narrowly, only Site Work allowed $8,658.35 and interest. |
| Whether OSFC waived Article 8.2/8.3 or contractual procedures for concrete costs | Stanley Miller argues some waiver occurred through practice and partnering; also that evidence supports claims. | OSFC did not waive 8.2/8.3; claims lacking proper back-up documentation. | No waiver established for concrete costs; no recoverable amount under 8.2/8.3. |
| Whether site work claim for backfill and retaining wall costs is recoverable | Claimed additional backfill costs due to differing site conditions and readiness for change orders. | Argues waiver not shown; costs should have been handled via change orders. | Site Work recovery allowed in the amount of $8,658.35. |
| Whether Stanley Miller is entitled to costs for sewer work and other ancillary claims | Seeks equitable adjustment for extra down-spouts and related labor/costs. | Way's assurances did not create a waiver; lack of backup documentation. | Sewer work portion denied; no recovery for other ancillary claims. |
| Whether Stanley Miller is entitled to interest and other monetary relief | Interest accrued on sums due in 2004; interest sought per agreement. | Denial based on contract/waiver issues. | Interest awarded; total $36,074.04. |
Key Cases Cited
- Athens Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Bd. of Dirs., 75 Ohio St.3d 611 (1996) (waiver requires more than notice; must show voluntary relinquishment of known right)
- Conti Corp. v. Dept. of Admin. Servs., 90 Ohio App.3d 462 (1993) (claims processing and waiver—context for 8.1 procedures)
- Kucan v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 2002-Ohio-4290 (10th Dist.) (unjust enrichment/contract interplay; no bad faith required for restitution under contract)
- Natl. City Bank v. Rini, 162 Ohio App.3d 746 (11th Dist.) (waiver and estoppel concepts in contract performance)
- Lewis & Michael Moving and Storage, Inc. v. Stofcheck Ambulance Serv., Inc., 2006- Ohio-3810 (10th Dist.) (waiver by estoppel; factual determination)