Tatman v. Vermeer
137 N.E.3d 512
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Tatman and Son’s purchased a Vermeer horizontal grinder in May 2009; the engine failed in June 2010, was replaced, and a second engine failure occurred in June 2011.
- Caterpillar Financial sued Tatman and Son’s; Tatman and Son’s filed third-party claims alleging negligence and breach of implied warranty against Vermeer-related defendants; Vermeer (manufacturer) was added in an amended third-party complaint in September 2013.
- The trial court granted Vermeer summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds (R.C. 2305.10(A), two-year limit), dismissing Tatman and Son’s claims as time-barred; the court later entered a second merits-based summary judgment that this court found void as issued after a final appealable order.
- Tatman and Son’s argued (1) a four-year statute might apply or accrual occurred later (Oct–Dec 2011) due to alleged repairs by Vermeer, and (2) the September 2013 amendment adding Vermeer related back to the February 2013 third-party complaint under Civ.R. 15(C).
- The court found (1) the two-year product-liability statute governs, (2) accrual occurred no later than June 2011, (3) the amended complaint did not relate back because Tatman and Son’s knew Vermeer was the manufacturer and they added Vermeer (not substituted), and (4) discovery-sanction claims failed—no abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable statute of limitations | Four-year statute may apply; or accrual occurred later (Oct–Dec 2011) | Two-year product-liability statute (R.C. 2305.10(A)) applies; accrual by June 2011 | Two-year statute applies; accrual no later than June 2011; claims time-barred |
| Accrual date for limitations | Accrual occurred after repairs/installations in Oct–Dec 2011 | Accrued when loss occurred (second engine failure) in June 2011 | Accrual at latest June 2011; later evidence insufficient to show Vermeer performed post-2010 repairs |
| Relation back under Civ.R. 15(C) | Amended complaint adding Vermeer should relate back to original Feb 2013 pleading | Relation back inapplicable because adding (not substituting) a defendant and plaintiff knew proper manufacturer | Amendment does not relate back; adding Vermeer while retaining dealer claims defeats Civ.R. 15(C) relief |
| Discovery sanctions denial | Late production prejudiced Plaintiff; trial court should overrule Vermeer’s limitations motion or impose other sanctions | Production delay was limited, not willful, and irrelevant to statute-of-limitations defense | No abuse of discretion denying severe sanctions; plaintiff failed to show prejudice relevant to the limitations defense |
Key Cases Cited
- Krasny v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 143 Ohio St. 284 (Ohio 1944) (journal entry requirement for a court to speak officially)
- City of Lakewood v. Papadelis, 32 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1987) (trial courts must impose the least severe discovery sanction consistent with discovery rules)
- Kraly v. Vannewkirk, 69 Ohio St.3d 627 (Ohio 1994) (Civ.R. 15(C) cannot be used to add a new party while retaining original defendant)
- Nakoff v. Fairview Gen. Hosp., 75 Ohio St.3d 254 (Ohio 1996) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- Pitts v. Ohio Dep’t of Transp., 67 Ohio St.2d 378 (Ohio 1981) (actions taken by court after final judgment outside rule scope are void)
- Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Harold Tatman and Son’s Enterprises, Inc., 50 N.E.3d 955 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015) (appellate decision identifying viable negligence and implied-warranty claims against Vermeer-related entities)