arrow left
arrow right
  • STEED HAMMOND PAUL INC Vs BERARDI PARTNERS INC VS.BERARDI PARTNERS INCOTHER CIVIL document preview
  • STEED HAMMOND PAUL INC Vs BERARDI PARTNERS INC VS.BERARDI PARTNERS INCOTHER CIVIL document preview
  • STEED HAMMOND PAUL INC Vs BERARDI PARTNERS INC VS.BERARDI PARTNERS INCOTHER CIVIL document preview
  • STEED HAMMOND PAUL INC Vs BERARDI PARTNERS INC VS.BERARDI PARTNERS INCOTHER CIVIL document preview
  • STEED HAMMOND PAUL INC Vs BERARDI PARTNERS INC VS.BERARDI PARTNERS INCOTHER CIVIL document preview
  • STEED HAMMOND PAUL INC Vs BERARDI PARTNERS INC VS.BERARDI PARTNERS INCOTHER CIVIL document preview
  • STEED HAMMOND PAUL INC Vs BERARDI PARTNERS INC VS.BERARDI PARTNERS INCOTHER CIVIL document preview
  • STEED HAMMOND PAUL INC Vs BERARDI PARTNERS INC VS.BERARDI PARTNERS INCOTHER CIVIL document preview
						
                                

Preview

Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Mar 15 4:16 PM-17CV001032 0G306 - D90 IN THE FRANKLIN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS GENERAL DIVISION Steed Hammond Paul, Inc., : Plaintiff, Case No. 17-CV-001032 vs. : Judge Jeffrey M. Brown Berardi Partners, Inc., Defendant. : DECISION ON JOINT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BROWN, J. This matter comes before the Court on the Joint Motion for Reconsideration, filed on February 24, 2022. The parties direct the Court to their respective Motions for Summary Judgment, filed on July 13, 2018. The Court issued a Decision and Judgment Entry Denying Parties’ Cross Motions for Summary Judgment on August 12, 2021, and the parties now ask the Court to reconsider its decision. The parties explain that they began to mediate this matter, but it became clear that without resolution of questions as to the viability of certain legal claims and defenses, the parties would be unable to resolve this case. Plaintiff asks the Court to determine whether it’s indemnification claim is barred by its voluntary settlement with TransAmerica and/or the Ohio School Facilities Commission. Specifically, whether a legal determination of liability is necessary to give a plaintiff a claim for indemnity or contribution. This assertion was set forth in Defendant’s Third Affirmative defense. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment argues that Plaintiffs claim for professional negligence fails because of the economic loss doctrine, and that Plaintiff is Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Mar 15 4:16 PM-17CV001032 0G306 - D91 not entitled to indemnity or contribution because its claim arose from a voluntary settlement rather than a legal determination of liability. The parties agree that resolution of this legal question is proper under Civ.R. 56(A). Given that the Court has already addressed the facts of this case in its prior decision of August 12, 2021, and the parties are asking the Court to focus its attention to a defined issue of law, the Court will forego restating the facts. Notably, the case law pertaining to this specific issue is sparse as the cases cited in the parties’ briefs involve insurance policies with the parties attempting to make parallel arguments to the instant case. Defendant contends that Plaintiff voluntarily made a payment to TransAmerica, which prohibits Plaintiff from bringing this action against Defendant as a matter of law. The Court disagrees and finds that Plaintiff's indemnification is not barred by its settlement with TransAmerica and/or the Ohio School Facilities Commission. While Plaintiff settled its action with TransAmerica absent a court order to do so, there was active litigation between the parties, and the Referee’s Decision submitted by Plaintiff clearly demonstrates there was much more at risk for Plaintiff than the amount settled for. There is also evidence of a contractual relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant. It is well-settled Ohio law that “one who, with knowledge of the facts and without legal liability makes a payment of money, thereby becomes a volunteer.” CNH Capital v. Janson Excavating, Inc., 2007-Ohio-2127, pp. 12-14 (1% Dist.). The Court does not find Plaintiff to be a volunteer. There is enough in the record and the history of the case to suggest that Plaintiff's settlement came because of impending legal liability. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to seek indemnification. Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Mar 15 4:16 PM-17CV001032 0G306 - D9 CONCLUSION Upon review, the Court finds the parties’ Joint Motion for Reconsideration is well- taken and therefore GRANTED. Further, Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed July 13, 2018, is hereby GRANTED and Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed July 13, 2018, is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Copies electronically to: All counsel of record. Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Mar 15 4:16 PM-17CV001032 0G306 - D9 Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Date: 03-15-2023 Case Title: STEED HAMMOND PAUL INC -VS- BERARDI PARTNERS INC Case Number: 17CV001032 Type: ENTRY It Is So Ordered. yh VN baw /s/ Judge Jeffrey M. Brown Electronically signed on 2023-Mar-15 page 4 of 4 Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Mar 15 4:16 PM-17CV001032 0G306 - D94 Court Disposition Case Number: 17CV001032 Case Style: STEED HAMMOND PAUL INC -VS- BERARDI PARTNERS INC Motion Tie Off Information: 1. Motion CMS Document Id: 17CV0010322022-02-2499980000 Document Title: 02-24-2022-MOTION TO RECONSIDER - PLAINTIFF: STEED HAMMOND PAUL INC Disposition: MOTION GRANTED