2018 Ohio 1859
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Servpro (defendant) hires subcontractor Tackle (plaintiff) for restoration work on multiple projects; Tackle sued for $6,320.13 for five projects.
- Parties agreed Servpro owed amounts on Upper Trent Way, Holman, Peeks, and Adams projects; dispute centered on Kimball project (house restoration).
- Tackle invoiced $8,120.66 for Kimball; Servpro credited $6,616.81 for work not done and had paid Tackle $2,000. Servpro claimed lost profit/overhead of $3,421.08 after homeowner fired Servpro when job remained incomplete.
- Magistrate found Tackle failed to complete Kimball wrongfully, that failure caused Servpro to lose the project, and deducted Servpro’s $3,421.08 loss as a set-off, resulting in Tackle owing Servpro $3,917.23 on Kimball.
- Netting all projects, magistrate recommended judgment for Tackle of $2,284.41; trial court adopted decision. Tackle appealed, arguing manifest-weight error as to Kimball findings and entitlement to prejudgment interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Servpro was obligated to purchase/baseboard-front costs for Kimball | Tackle: Servpro agreed to "front" money for the baseboard and thus was obligated | Servpro: "Fronting" is discretionary courtesy; no agreement to fund baseboard | Court: No obligation shown; trial court did not lose its way |
| Whether Tackle’s failure to finish Kimball was wrongful | Tackle: Left because Servpro refused to pay for baseboard, so failure not wrongful | Servpro: Tackle was contractually responsible for supplying/installing baseboard | Court: Failure was wrongful; record supports finding |
| Whether Tackle’s failure caused Servpro to lose the project | Tackle: Servpro’s refusal to pay caused the loss | Servpro: Homeowner fired Servpro because Tackle did not install acceptable baseboard | Court: Causal link found; trial court’s finding upheld |
| Whether Servpro’s lost profit/overhead ($3,421.08) was proven | Tackle: Insurance estimate and returns imply smaller lost profit; alternate calculation shows less loss | Servpro: Insurer’s estimate allocated $3,421.08 profit/overhead and Pedtke testified he lost that amount | Court: Amount reasonable and supported by testimony and insurer estimate; finding not against manifest weight |
| Whether Tackle is entitled to prejudgment interest under R.C. 1343.03(A) | Tackle: Claim accrued Sept. 1, 2016; prejudgment interest due | Servpro/Trial court: No request/motion for prejudgment interest made below; money due/payable unclear pre-judgment | Court: Denied—trial court did not err in refusing interest not requested and where due date was disputed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (establishes manifest-weight standard applied in civil cases)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (same manifest-weight framework; deference to factfinder credibility)
- Crawford v. Hawes, 995 N.E.2d 966 (2d Dist.) (applies Thompkins/Eastley standard to civil appeals)
- Kosier v. DeRosa, 169 Ohio App.3d 150 (lost-profit determination is question of fact)
- TJX Cos., Inc. v. Hall, 183 Ohio App.3d 236 (amount of damages may be reasonably estimated; exactness not required)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (credibility determinations are for the trier of fact)