State v. Karl R. Rohrer Assocs., Inc.
104 N.E.3d 865
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Karl R. Rohrer Assocs., Inc. (Rohrer) contracted with the Ohio Department of Administrative Services to provide structural engineering/design services for an ODOT District 11 garage completed in the 1990s; the State Architect’s Office provided structural designs.
- SAO discovered brick/window problems in 1997; Rohrer paid $68,000 to remediate some window issues. The State later alleged broader design defects (window lintels, wall support) across the facility and sought over $1.5 million in repair costs.
- The State sued (2015) asserting negligence, breach of contract, and declaratory relief; negligence and declaratory claims were dismissed before trial.
- Rohrer moved to dismiss/for judgment on the pleadings and later for directed verdict arguing the claim was time-barred by Ohio’s statute of repose, R.C. 2305.131; the trial court initially denied the pleadings motion but granted directed verdict at the close of the State’s case on the ground the evidence “sounded in tort” and failed to prove breach.
- On appeal the Fifth District considered whether R.C. 2305.131 bars the State’s breach-of-contract claim and whether the doctrine nullum tempus (time does not run against the State) prevents application of the statute of repose. The court held the claim is barred by R.C. 2305.131 and that nullum tempus does not exempt the State from the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2305.131 (ten-year statute of repose) applies to the State's breach-of-contract claim alleging property damage to an improvement to real property | State: Kocisko means the statute applies only to tort claims; contract claims governed by R.C. 2305.06 | Rohrer: statute bars any cause of action for property injury from defective improvements more than 10 years after substantial completion | Held: R.C. 2305.131 applies where damages are injury to property from a defective improvement, regardless of whether the claim is styled in contract or tort; State’s claim was time-barred |
| Whether prior precedent (Kocisko) controls interpretation of the current statute | State: Kocisko controls; prior version limited to torts | Rohrer: current statutory language and legislative history supersede Kocisko | Held: Kocisko is not binding on the current statute; the 2004 reenacted statute changed the legal effect and scope |
| Whether nullum tempus (time does not run against the king) prevents application of R.C. 2305.131 to the State | State: nullum tempus exempts the State from statutes of limitation/repose unless statute expressly includes the government | Rohrer: statute extinguishes causes of action after ten years and the statute’s express language and purpose displace nullum tempus | Held: nullum tempus does not bar application; R.C. 2305.131(F) and legislative purpose show repose extinguishes claims against the State |
| Whether the trial court erred in granting directed verdict on other grounds (e.g., that claim “sounded in tort” or failure to prove breach) | State: evidence supported breach-of-contract damages and trial should proceed | Rohrer: relief unnecessary if statute barred; trial court also found evidence sounded in tort | Held: appellate court found disposition controlled by statute-of-repose ruling and affirmed judgment as the complaint was time-barred; other trial rulings rendered moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Kocisko v. Charles Shutrump & Sons Co., 21 Ohio St.3d 98 (Ohio 1986) (earlier version of R.C. 2305.131 was interpreted as not applying to contract actions)
- Hedges v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 109 Ohio St.3d 70 (Ohio 2006) (statutory amendment can change prior judicial interpretations)
- Groob v. KeyBank, 108 Ohio St.3d 348 (Ohio 2006) (directed verdict standard and de novo appellate review)
- State, Dept. of Transp. v. Sullivan, 38 Ohio St.3d 137 (Ohio 1988) (discussion of nullum tempus and the State’s exemption from statutes of limitation)
- Shasta View Irrigation Dist. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 329 Or. 151 (Ore. 1999) (statute of repose extinguishes claims irrespective of government diligence; public-policy rationale for nullum tempus does not apply to repose)