Breach of Contract Cases

Appellant challenges a judgment of the circuit court sustaining a plea of sovereign immunity filed by a separately incorporated subsidiary of the Chesapeake Hospital Authority (the "Authority") in response to claims for breach of contract and tortious interference with appellant's employment agreement with one of its physicians. For the reasons explained in this opinion, it is concluded on the present appeal that the circuit court erred in sustaining the plea of sovereign immunity and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Breach of contract; unjust enrichment; void; R.C. 4735.02; weight of the evidence; damages; R.C. 2323.51; frivolous conduct. Affirmed. The trial court did not err by concluding that an enforceable contract existed based on the claims asserted in the complaint and at trial for damages stemming from a breach of the agreement, and the trial court's determination that the plaintiff failed to prove damages was not against the weight of the evidence. And finally, because the plaintiff failed to file a motion for attorney fees under R.C. 2323.51, no claim for fees was preserved.

DEFAMATION PER SE – TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE – BREACH OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT – QUALIFED PRIVILEGE – ACTUAL MALICE – JURY INSTRUCTIONS – DERIVATIVE CLAIMS – NOTICE OF CROSS-APPEAL: Where plaintiff former employee sued his former employer for defamation, the trial court erred in finding that the former employer's statements were protected under qualified privilege where the court improperly determined that the privilege applied based on the employer-employee relationship and did not fully consider the remaining elements of the qualified-privilege standard, and the court erred in instructing the jury that it had to find actual malice in order to find in favor of plaintiff on his defamation claim. The trial court erred in determining that plaintiff former employee's breach-of-contract claim against his former employer was derivative of his defamation claim where the contract claim fell under a separate settlement contract between the parties. Where plaintiffs' witness lacked firsthand knowledge of the statements about which he sought to testify, he lacked the personal knowledge required by Evid.R. 602. Where plaintiff could not definitively identify the caller, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence about a phone call. Where defendant-appellee failed to file a notice of cross-appeal but sought to assert a cross-assignment of error to change the trial court's judgment, the cross-assignment of error must be dismissed.

This opinion addresses Civil Practice & Remedies Code Chapter 33's definition of "responsible third party" and the meaning of "the harm for which recovery of damages is sought," as used therein. This Opinion addresses the enforcement of a mandatory Buy-Sell Option clause and its specific performance remedy after the Offeror tendered the requisite buy/sell notice and the Offeree failed to respond to the notice and claimed the Offeror violated the underlying Company Agreement. The Court ultimately finds the Offeror is entitled to specific performance from the Offeree under the Buy-Sell Option clause. The Court awards the Offeror attorneys' fees. Ruling after court-ordered Rule 166(g) briefing. Ruling that Plaintiffs take nothing by their claims for declaratory relief and, with respect to one defendant, that Plaintiffs take nothing by their claims for accounting and inspection of books and records, breach of contract or an alleged partnership agreement, or for fraud and unjust enrichment. Ruling that Defendants take nothing by their claims for declaratory relief. Ruling that Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud relating to one plaintiff and alternative claim for quantum meruit, and Defendants' claim for conversion, remain pending and will proceed to jury trial as set. Granting traditional and non-evidence summary judgment against Plaintiff's defamation claim because the complained-of statements are not objectively verifiable and therefore, as a matter of law, are not defamatory. Denying reconsideration of an order remanding the case back to district court on the grounds that the removal to business court was untimely. Denying permission to take a permissive interlocutory appeal of that order. This opinion addresses (i) whether the Property (Trust) Code bars a trustee from enforcing a punitive damages waiver; (ii) if not, whether the waiver in one bond financing contract applies to claims based on a related contract in the same

This opinion addresses Civil Practice & Remedies Code Chapter 33's definition of "responsible third party" and the meaning of "the harm for which recovery of damages is sought," as used therein. This Opinion addresses the enforcement of a mandatory Buy-Sell Option clause and its specific performance remedy after the Offeror tendered the requisite buy/sell notice and the Offeree failed to respond to the notice and claimed the Offeror violated the underlying Company Agreement. The Court ultimately finds the Offeror is entitled to specific performance from the Offeree under the Buy-Sell Option clause. The Court awards the Offeror attorneys' fees. Ruling after court-ordered Rule 166(g) briefing. Ruling that Plaintiffs take nothing by their claims for declaratory relief and, with respect to one defendant, that Plaintiffs take nothing by their claims for accounting and inspection of books and records, breach of contract or an alleged partnership agreement, or for fraud and unjust enrichment. Ruling that Defendants take nothing by their claims for declaratory relief. Ruling that Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud relating to one plaintiff and alternative claim for quantum meruit, and Defendants' claim for conversion, remain pending and will proceed to jury trial as set. Granting traditional and non-evidence summary judgment against Plaintiff's defamation claim because the complained-of statements are not objectively verifiable and therefore, as a matter of law, are not defamatory. Denying reconsideration of an order remanding the case back to district court on the grounds that the removal to business court was untimely. Denying permission to take a permissive interlocutory appeal of that order. This opinion addresses (i) whether the Property (Trust) Code bars a trustee from enforcing a punitive damages waiver; (ii) if not, whether the waiver in one bond financing contract applies to claims based on a related contract in the same

This opinion addresses Civil Practice & Remedies Code Chapter 33's definition of "responsible third party" and the meaning of "the harm for which recovery of damages is sought," as used therein. This Opinion addresses the enforcement of a mandatory Buy-Sell Option clause and its specific performance remedy after the Offeror tendered the requisite buy/sell notice and the Offeree failed to respond to the notice and claimed the Offeror violated the underlying Company Agreement. The Court ultimately finds the Offeror is entitled to specific performance from the Offeree under the Buy-Sell Option clause. The Court awards the Offeror attorneys' fees. Ruling after court-ordered Rule 166(g) briefing. Ruling that Plaintiffs take nothing by their claims for declaratory relief and, with respect to one defendant, that Plaintiffs take nothing by their claims for accounting and inspection of books and records, breach of contract or an alleged partnership agreement, or for fraud and unjust enrichment. Ruling that Defendants take nothing by their claims for declaratory relief. Ruling that Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud relating to one plaintiff and alternative claim for quantum meruit, and Defendants' claim for conversion, remain pending and will proceed to jury trial as set. Granting traditional and non-evidence summary judgment against Plaintiff's defamation claim because the complained-of statements are not objectively verifiable and therefore, as a matter of law, are not defamatory. Denying reconsideration of an order remanding the case back to district court on the grounds that the removal to business court was untimely. Denying permission to take a permissive interlocutory appeal of that order. This opinion addresses (i) whether the Property (Trust) Code bars a trustee from enforcing a punitive damages waiver; (ii) if not, whether the waiver in one bond financing contract applies to claims based on a related contract in the same

Ruling after court-ordered Rule 166(g) briefing. Ruling that Plaintiffs take nothing by their claims for declaratory relief and, with respect to one defendant, that Plaintiffs take nothing by their claims for accounting and inspection of books and records, breach of contract or an alleged partnership agreement, or for fraud and unjust enrichment. Ruling that Defendants take nothing by their claims for declaratory relief. Ruling that Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud relating to one plaintiff and alternative claim for quantum meruit, and Defendants' claim for conversion, remain pending and will proceed to jury trial as set. Granting traditional and non-evidence summary judgment against Plaintiff's defamation claim because the complained-of statements are not objectively verifiable and therefore, as a matter of law, are not defamatory. Denying reconsideration of an order remanding the case back to district court on the grounds that the removal to business court was untimely. Denying permission to take a permissive interlocutory appeal of that order. This opinion addresses (i) whether the Property (Trust) Code bars a trustee from enforcing a punitive damages waiver; (ii) if not, whether the waiver in one bond financing contract applies to claims based on a related contract in the same financing; and (iii) whether a trustee owes continuing fiduciary duties to its beneficiaries once the trustee resigns and is replaced by a substitute trustee. The court concludes that (i) the punitive damages waiver is enforceable here because the Trust Code does not reflect a legislative intent to bar such waivers; (ii) the subject waiver applies to both contracts because they are integral parts of the same financing arrangement; and (iii) a terminated and replaced trustee must protect a former beneficiary's confidential information that the trustee obtained during the trust relationship. Granting Defendant's motion to strike untimely filed su

Reconsideration; App.R. 26(A)(1)(a); error of law; contract; breach of contract; conspiracy to commit fraud; fraud; consumer sales practices act ("CSPA"); permit; employee; employer; relevant evidence; Evid.R. 401; Evid.R. 403; damages; insufficient evidence; manifest weight; unfair or deceptive acts; piercing the corporate veil; alter ego; apparent authority; principal; agent; attorney fees. The trial court's journal entry following a bench trial is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. The evidence presented at trial supported the trial court's finding that the defendant-appellant LLC contracted with the plaintiff-appellee to do HVAC work through the apparent authority of its employee/agent and that the LLC breached the contract and violated the CSPA. However, there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that the owner of the LLC was individually liable on these claims. There was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding of a civil conspiracy to commit fraud and, therefore, the award of punitive damages and the award of statutory damages are vacated; however, the trial court's award of attorney fees was supported by sufficient evidence.

NCWHA, UDTP, severance payment, non-compete payment

The plaintiff home improvement contractor appealed from the trial court's judgments for the defendant condominium owners on their respective coun- terclaims for breach of contract and negligence. The plaintiff had com- menced a separate action for, inter alia, breach of contract against the owners of each of four condominium units following the owners' termination of contracts to construct decks for their units. Prior to trial, the plaintiff withdrew its complaint in each case, and the court consolidated the cases for trial on the defendants' counterclaims. On appeal, the plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly found that it had materially breached the contracts it had entered with the respective defendants. Held: The trial court's finding that the plaintiff had materially breached the con- tracts was not clearly erroneous, as the court's finding that the delay in construction was a material breach was supported by the evidence in the record even though the contracts did not specifically provide that time was of the essence in the completion of the construction projects. The trial court improperly calculated the amount of damages that the defen- dants could recover on their breach of contract counterclaims because the defendants did not incur losses for which they could recover in contract, as the court expressly found that no defendant paid more than the original contract price for the completion of the work called for under the contracts, and, accordingly, this court vacated the damages awards and remanded the cases with direction to enter awards of nominal damages on the breach of contract counterclaims. To the extent that the trial court's damages awards included any amounts attributable to its finding that the plaintiff breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the court erred in issuing those awards, as the defendants neither pleaded a claim for such a breach or alleged conduct by the plaintiff that would support such a cla

Judgment affirmed. The trial court properly found the purchaser, Benie, breached the parties' Asset Purchase Agreement ("APA") by failing to provide the seller, Momentum, with both the $69,269.00 and the $257,999.32 Bureau of Workers' Compensation ("BWC") policy holder dividend payments. Evidence from the BWC demonstrated that both payments were dividend reimbursements calculated based on the premiums an employer paid in 2019. Because both payments were a "premium dividend reimbursement" for the 2019 policy period, the APA obligated Benie to provide both payments to Momentum in a timely fashion. The trial court did not err by finding that Momentum could pierce the corporate veil of Benie. Competent and credible evidence demonstrated the owners of Benie, Elizabeth and Russell Dawson, operated Benie as their alter ego, used their control over Benie to commit a fraudulent transfer and civil theft, and that Momentum suffered damages as a result of the Dawsons' control and wrongful conduct of Benie. The economic loss rule did not bar Momentum's claim for civil theft but did bar Momentum's claims for fraudulent transfer and civil conspiracy, because the damages resulting from the fraudulent transfer and civil conspiracy were the same as the damages resulting from the breach of contract. However, because the trial court did not award any damages attributable to the fraudulent transfer or civil conspiracy claims, there was no aspect of the trial court's judgment to reverse.