Construction Industry

Experience

Project Manager Representation

We obtained summary judgment on behalf of one of the world's leading project management and construction companies in a lawsuit brought by a contractor alleging breach of oral contract and promissory estoppel. The claims arose from a bid dispute during construction of a large gypsum wall board plant in West Virginia. Following extensive briefing and a hearing on the motion, the trial court found in favor of our client, dismissing the contractor’s claims in their entirety.

Supply Contract Dispute

In this dispute the arbitrator awarded our client 85% of the amount sought, plus virtually all of the arbitrator costs. Discovery in the proceeding was limited by the transactional documents, and the arbitration turned on the characterization of items supplied for large material handling systems designed to move coal through power plants. By highlighting the interrelationship the new parts and equipment bore to the existing material handling systems, Mr. Leach was able to establish that the items supplied fell within the contractual definition of those for which supplemental payment was due.

Anonymous Plaintiff v. General Contractor

Plaintiff filed suit against our client, a general contractor, seeking $100,000 for defects in Plaintiff's home related to the use of synthetic stucco (EIFS) material.  Dinsmore & Shohl obtained a dismissal in favor of the general contractor on the basis of the North Carolina Statute of Repose.

Anonymous Plaintiff v. General Contractor

Plaintiff filed suit against our client, general contractor, seeking $1 million for defects in Plaintiff's home related to the use of synthetic stucco (EIFS) material.  Dinsmore & Shohl negotiated settlement with the homeowners on the general contractor's behalf and prosecuted third-party claims against the EIFS product manufacturer.

Anonymous Plaintiff v. General Contractor

Plaintiffs filed a $300,000 suit against our client, the general contractor, for defects in Plaintiff's home related to moisture intrusion and structural defects.  The general contractor in turned filed suit against 12 different subcontractors.  The case was settled favorably for the client after two days of mediation.

Anonymous Plaintiff v. General Contractor

Plaintiff filed suit against our client, a general contractor, seeking $1,000,000 for defects in Plaintiffs' home related to the use of synthetic stucco (EIFS) material.  Dinsmore & Shohl obtained dismissal in favor of the general contractor, individually, which was affirmed on appeal.

Anonymous Plaintiff v. General Contractor

Plaintiff filed a $300,000 suit against our client, the general contractor, for defects in Plaintiff's home.  The claim went through arbitration, settling favorably for the client after a minimal verdict was rendered.

Anonymous Plaintiff v. General Contractor

Plaintiff filed suit for $1,000,000 against our client, the general contractor, for defects in Plaintiff's home. The claim went through a week-long arbitration, settling favorably for the client before a verdict was rendered.

Anonymous Plaintiff v. General Contractor

Plaintiff filed suit for $300,000 against our client, the general contractor, for defects in Plaintiff's home.  The claim went through three days of arbitration, settling favorably for the client after a minimal verdict was rendered.

Anonymous Plaintiff v. Insurance Company

Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against our client, an insurance company, seeking coverage in excess of $75,000 for moisture intrusion damage due to defects in Plaintiff's home.  The case was removed to Federal court, was never certified as a class action and was eventually dismissed.

Anonymous Plaintiffs v. Window Manufacturer

Plaintiffs filed a $200,000 suit against the general contractor, who in turn filed suit against our client, a window manufacturer, for alleged defects in the windows.  The case was settled after mediation.

Anonymous Plaintiffs v. Window Manufacturer

Plaintiffs sued our client, a window manufacturer, for $75,000 for allegedly defective windows.  The case was settled.

Bohl v. Hauke

Dinsmore & Shohl defended American Building Components in a Highland County, Ohio case involving allegations American Building Components breached its limited written warranty, was negligent, and breached an alleged obligation of good faith and fair dealing when it supplied a roof to a general contractor, who constructed a commercial dairy barn for the plaintiff. The case was dismissed based upon the Court's enforcement of a forum selection clause contained in the limited written warranty. In essence, the Court refused to let the plaintiff selectively enforce the provisions of the limited written warranty. The Court's ruling was upheld by Ohio's Fourth Appellate District, and the opinion is published as: Bohl v. Hauke (4th App. Dist. 2009) 180 Ohio App.3d 526.

Breach of Contract Claims

Represented a commercial/residential roofing contractor who asserted claims of breach of contract relating to monies due from general contractor for work on a large condominium project. Also defended client against claim of faulty workmanship. Case was settled on terms favorable to our client.

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity in Contested Case Involving Construction of Additional Water Supply Facilities

We represented our client, a large water company, in a heavily-contested case before the Kentucky Public Service Commission regarding a different large water utility’s efforts to build a new water treatment plant. By presenting a reliable, cost-efficient alternative to the other water utility’s proposal, our representation was successful in paving the way for fruitful discussions between our client and other new large potential customers.

Commercial Construction Dispute Relating to Payment

We represented a material supplier in a commercial construction dispute in which our client was seeking in excess of $400,000 for materials supplied to the project. After the general contractor failed to pay the amounts due (and subsequently went out of business), we made a claim on the payment bond associated with the project. The surety company refused to pay our client’s claim on the bond, contending that our client was not entitled to recover because the project owner had issued joint checks payable to the general contractor and the owner. We successfully overcame the surety company’s reliance upon the “joint check rule” by prevailing on a motion for summary judgment. The court of appeals and the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the summary judgment ruling in favor of our client. Accordingly, our client was able to recover the entire unpaid amount from the bonding company, plus interest and fees.

Demarco Inc. v. Johns Manville Corp., et al.

Roofing products case -- defense verdict upheld on appeal in the Franklin County (Ohio) Court of Appeals.  Allegations included breach of warranties, indemnification and tortious interference with contracts.

Homeowner v. General Contractor and Siding Manufacturer

We represented the Plaintiff homeowner in a suit for $200,000 against the general contractor and siding manufacturer for damages to the client's home.  The case was settled at mediation.

Hotel Owners v. Painting Subcontractor

Plaintiff hotel owners filed a $300,000 suit against our client, a painting and moisture proofing subcontractor, and against the coating manufacturer for moisture damage to the hotel.  The claim settled favorably for the client after mediation and before trial.

Lien Claims

I have successfully litigated and mediated multiple lien claims in numerous construction-related cases throughout Ohio.

Litigation Relating to Change Order For a Construction Contract

We represented a general contracting company based out of Atlanta, Georgia in a complicated construction litigation matter in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The case related to issues associated with change orders for the scope of work and contentions regarding the quality of workmanship. Following the conclusion of a two-week trial, we obtained a jury verdict in excess of $1,000,000 for our client. We were subsequently able to negotiate a favorable settlement of this matter and two related cases that were pending in State court.

Nationwide Arena

As questions swirled around the economic future of the Columbus Blue Jackets, representatives of Franklin County, the City of Columbus, The Ohio State University (OSU), Nationwide Insurance and the Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority (CFA) formed a working committee to examine potential ways to help the Blue Jackets and keep them in Central Ohio. Along with OSU athletics, the Blue Jackets are one of the city’s biggest entertainment draws, and ensuring the viability of the team, along with Nationwide Arena, is important to not only the franchise’s future, but also the city’s economic health.

Dinsmore was the firm chosen to represent the CFA to negotiate and close this complex, multi-layered transaction. Dinsmore worked with the CFA and the other parties to develop a structure that allowed the CFA to take direct ownership of Nationwide Arena while allowing certain operating and capital expenses to be shared among the parties. To undertake this expense-sharing relationship, a non-profit entity called Columbus Arena Management (CAM) was formed as a joint undertaking by the CFA, Blue Jackets, Nationwide and OSU to operate and manage Nationwide Arena.

Dinsmore was intimately involved in all aspects of the transaction and took primary responsibility for drafting and negotiating the $42.5 million purchase agreement providing for the sale and restructuring of the existing arena ownership. Further, Dinsmore negotiated and prepared the other major agreements between the Blue Jackets, Nationwide and OSU that provided, amongst other items (i) the team’s continued use of the arena as its “home ice” through 2039, and (ii) the shared management and allocation of expenses for the arena. This transaction is projected to increase the arena’s viability as the financial stakes and responsibilities are now shared among a number of entities through CAM. Additionally, the Blue Jacket’s cost of occupancy is being reduced, which will enable them to better compete financially with other franchises.

The transaction marked one of the largest ventures between the private and public sectors in recent history in Central Ohio and made a significant statement within the Columbus community. In addition to ensuring the long-term viability of the Blue Jackets, Nationwide Arena and surrounding geographic areas, it also represents the coming together of several organizations and entities, each of which brought essential components to the transaction. In so doing, the CFA was able to build a better future for Columbus.

Dinsmore is proud and honored to have had the opportunity and responsibility to manage the process and provide counsel at each step.

Northwestern Ohio Building & Construction Trades Council v. City of Toledo, et al., Lucas County Court of Common Pleas

Plaintiff Union claimed violation of prevailing wage and hour laws under Ohio Revised Code. Successfully negotiated a settlement at less than 50% of full value of case and avoided attorneys fees.

Prime Contractor v. Owner and Project Engineer

Obtained multi-million dollar settlement for Prime Contractor in large, complex action against Owner and Project Engineer for delay, interference, breach of contract, and related claims. The case involved significant electronic and paper discovery, extensive deposition practice, extensive motion practice, multiple experts, complex case management methods, and varied methods of alternative dispute resolution.

Quantum Construction Company v. Board of Township Trustees of Anderson Township

Dinsmore & Shohl represented Quantum Construction Company ("Quantum") in a lawsuit filed against the Board of Township Trustees of Anderson Township ("Anderson Township") related to breach of contract and construction delay claims arising from Quantum's work as a general contractor on the construction of the Anderson Center. Anderson Township counterclaimed for more than one million dollars in liquidated damages pursuant to the parties' contract for construction delays. After significant litigation, Quantum favorably settled the case in return for a substantial payment by Anderson Township.

Regional Gas & Electric Company v. Turbine Manufacturer

Our client, a turbine manufacturer, contracted with a regional gas & electric company for the sale, construction, and installation of a turbine generator and associated equipment for use at one of its power stations.  The gas & electric company filed a suit seeking in excess of $1 million, alleging that during installation, our client failed to properly install the generator and that the generator suffered substantial damage when certain parts broke. Plaintiff asserted claims for negligence and breach of contract.  We obtained summary judgment for the Defendant, arguing the contract and the economic loss rule precluded all of Plaintiff's claims. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal upheld summary judgment.

Representation of Business Owners on Build-Outs

Represented business owners in disputes on build-outs on behalf of multiple restaurants, businesses and shopping complexes, including franchise-related clients.

Representation of Home Builders

Represented multiple home builders in claims throughout Ohio on multiple legal issues, lawsuits, mediations, arbitrations, liens and supplier disputes.

Represented Graeter’s Manufacturing in all Aspects of Construction of its Manufacturing Facility

We represented Graeter’s Manufacturing Co. with respect to the acquisition, development and construction of its manufacturing facility on Paddock Road in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Serial Litigation Involving EIFS

Our firm acted as National Coordinating Counsel and handled serial product liability construction litigation throughout the country totaling $100 million involving EIFS exterior cladding.  We were retained to represent dozens of clients in the construction industry in over 500 EIFS litigation cases, all of which proceeded through mediation, arbitration, trial or appeal.