Experience
SK Construction v. Municipality
Obtained jury defense verdict in matter involving several million dollars in claims against the owner by the prime contractor based on claims of breach of contract and project design issues which allegedly caused delay.
Smoot Construction Company of Ohio
Mr. Leach has represented Smoot Construction in relation to a number of projects over recent years. In one instance he prosecuted a claim for additional compensation arising from Smoot's construction management of the $110,000,000 renovation of the Ohio Statehouse. That claim settled through mediation for $2.1 million dollars. In another instance he represented Smoot in litigation involving the construction of a state prison. After trial and appeal, Smoot received more than $1.3 million dollars. The issues revolved around acceleration, differing site conditions, warranties and the Spearin doctrine. Sherman R. Smoot Co. v. Ohio Department of Administrative Services (Franklin Cty. 2000), 136 Ohio App. 3d 166, stands as a leading case on those issues.
State Agency Representation
As a former Ohio Assistant Attorney General, represented ODOT, DAS and numerous state agencies in the defense and prosecution of construction claims.
Surety Claim
Mr. Leach defended a surety in a claim by the Meigs Local School District and Ohio School Facilities Commission relating to default of the surety's principal. Both the termination and demand for surety performance were disputed, as was the amount of damages claimed by the owners. Following proceedings in local state court, the court of claims and the court of appeals, the owner dropped its demand by $900,000 and the dispute was settled.
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 3 of 3