Experience
Thomas and Marker Construction v. Big Box Retailer
Plaintiff claimed complex construction contract was misleading and did not fairly advise Plaintiff of site existing conditions which increased Plaintiff's costs to build the project.
Thomas and Marker Construction v. Big Box Retailer
Worked on motion for summary judgment in a matter where plaintiff claimed damages for work on purported “unforeseen” site conditions where subsurface rock was encountered during excavation. Was successful in convincing court that Spearin doctrine, which permits an action for implied warranty of accuracy of plans, was not applicable in Ohio to non-government construction projects and this claim, along with claims for promissory/equitable estoppel, unjust enrichment, fraud in the inducement, and breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing should be dismissed.
Village
Represented Village as owner of large, multi-year flood control project in negotiations with co-owner City, contractors, public utilities, private landowners, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The project included contract negotiation, contractor claims, eminent domain, property acquisition, government compliance, utility relocation, and legislation.
Water Works Supplies, Inc. v. Grooms Construction Co.
Our firm represented the Plaintiff in a suit involving a complex claim against a surety bond and general contractor arising out of a construction project. Our client supplied large quantities of material to the general contractor on a public construction project in Highland County, Ohio. When the general contractor failed to pay our client for these materials, we filed a Complaint on behalf of our client against the material supplier and the surety company. The surety company asserted a variety of defenses to our client's claim for payment, including an argument that our client's claim was barred by the "joint check rule." After extensive litigation through the trial court and the court of appeals, we ultimately obtained summary judgment on behalf of our client against the surety company, and were able to recoup the entire amount due to our client, plus interest. This case involved novel legal issues of first impression in Ohio. Through the effective use of motion practice and thorough research, we were able to obtain a substantial recovery on behalf of our client in a vigorously contested case.
- Page 2 of 2