Univ. of Findlay v. Martin
2017 Ohio 7016
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- University of Findlay contracted with USA Lawns, Inc. (USA) in Dec. 2013 to perform lawn/landscape work, including herbicide application; Brad Martin was USA’s president and Pat McKinnis was the applicator.
- On April 28, 2014 McKinnis applied the wrong product and damaged the University’s turf; both parties acknowledged damage.
- On June 16, 2014 the parties executed a Covenant Not to Execute Judgment in Excess of Insurance Proceeds: USA paid cash and provided labor totaling $250,000 and the University agreed to sue USA to pursue insurance proceeds, while promising not to execute a judgment against USA personally.
- University sued Appellants May 2015 for negligence, negligent supervision, and failure to carry statutorily required insurance. The trial court denied Appellants’ summary judgment motion, granted University partial summary judgment, and after a bench trial entered judgment for the University on all claims.
- On appeal the Third District: affirmed denial of summary judgment on mootness/accord defenses and affirmed denial of Civ.R. 41(B)(2) dismissal; reversed the trial court’s ruling that the University had standing to maintain a private cause of action under R.C. 921.25(B) (statutory insurance requirement).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness / Accord & Satisfaction: whether Covenant precluded suit or provided full relief | University: Covenant preserved right to sue insurer and did not bar suit against USA to access insurance proceeds | Appellants: Covenant resolved claims (accord & satisfaction) and therefore suit is moot | Court: Covenant anticipated and required suit to pursue insurer; not moot and not an accord & satisfaction — summary judgment denied |
| Standing under R.C. 921.25(B): whether an injured party may bring a private action for violation of pesticide-insurance requirement | University: statutory and admin provisions imply a private right to sue for failure to carry required insurance | Appellants: statute vests enforcement in Attorney General; private remedy for the regulatory violation is not provided | Court: No private cause of action implied by R.C. 921.25(B); only AG may bring the statutory enforcement action — University lacked standing on that claim (reversed) |
| Civil Rule 41(B)(2) dismissal at close of plaintiff’s case: whether University failed to make prima facie showing | University: presented undisputed negligence and evidence of repair costs and testimony supporting sod replacement necessity | Appellants: University already received Covenant recovery and did not prove reasonableness of damages | Court: Trial judge properly withheld ruling, found sufficient competent evidence to require defense to present evidence — dismissal denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohio Gov't Risk Mgmt. Plan v. Harrison, 115 Ohio St.3d 241 (standards for de novo review of summary judgment)
- Comer v. Risko, 106 Ohio St.3d 185 (summary judgment principles)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (movant's burden and nonmovant’s reciprocal burden in Civ.R. 56)
- Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (factors for implying a private cause of action)
- Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560 (central inquiry whether statute evidences congressional intent to create private remedy)
- Allen v. R.G. Indus. Supply, 66 Ohio St.3d 229 (elements of accord and satisfaction)