Case Title: Martin v. Design Constr. Servs., Inc.

Citation: 2009-Ohio-1

Docket Number: 20072023 and 20072024

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2009-01-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Martin v. Design Constr. Servs., Inc., 121 Ohio St.3d 66, 2009-Ohio-1.] 
 
 
MARTIN ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. DESIGN CONSTRUCTION  
SERVICES, INC., APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Martin v. Design Constr. Servs., Inc.,  
121 Ohio St.3d 66, 2009-Ohio-1.] 
In an action based on temporary injury to noncommercial real estate, a plaintiff 
need not prove diminution in the market value of the property in order to 
recover the reasonable costs of restoration, but diminution of the market 
value may be a factor bearing on the reasonableness of the cost of 
restoration. 
(Nos. 2007-2023 and 2007-2024 – Submitted September 16, 2008 – Decided 
January 6, 2009.) 
APPEAL from and CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Summit County, 
No. 23422, 2007-Ohio-4805. 
__________________ 
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT 
In an action based on temporary injury to noncommercial real estate, a plaintiff 
need not prove diminution in the market value of the property in order to 
recover the reasonable costs of restoration, but either party may offer 
evidence of diminution of the market value of the property as a factor 
bearing on the reasonableness of the cost of restoration. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J. 
I 
{¶ 1} The Ninth District Court of Appeals certified the following issue 
pursuant to Section 3(B)(4), Article IV, Ohio Constitution and App.R. 25: “[I]n an 
action for temporary damages to a noncommercial real property, [is] a failure to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
prove the difference between the fair market value of the whole property just 
before the damage was done and immediately thereafter * * * fatal to the claim?”   
{¶ 2} For the following reasons, we answer the question in the negative 
and reverse the judgment of the court of appeals. 
II 
{¶ 3} This case concerns a home built by Design Construction Services, 
Inc., appellee.  The current owners of the home, Michael and Jennifer Martin, 
appellants, sued Design Construction over defects in the home stemming from 
faulty construction.  Specifically, the Martins alleged that the walls and 
foundation of the attached garage required repair due to Design Construction’s 
negligence. 
{¶ 4} The home was built on a sloping lot.  Accordingly, earth under the 
attached garage had been leveled in preparation for pouring the garage floor.  
While pushing fill dirt inside the garage with a bulldozer, a Design Construction 
employee applied too much pressure on the dirt, which, in turn, pressed against 
the exterior walls, causing two of the concrete-block walls to flex outward.  
Design Construction attempted to repair the bowed walls by excavating around 
the walls, straightening them, and repairing the cracks in the walls.  Satisfied with 
these repairs, Design Construction completed the building and sold it in 1998.  In 
1999, Design Construction hired a company to fill the concrete blocks with grout. 
{¶ 5} In the summer of 2000, the Martins bought the home.  During pre-
sale visits to the home, the Martins were made aware of cracks in the facing of the 
garage foundation walls.  These cracks were noted on the property disclosure 
form, along with a note that a crack had been fixed in 1999.  The home-inspection 
report, which was produced for the Martins, also noted the cracks and advised that 
such cracks were not unusual for the age of the house and should be monitored for 
widening. 
January Term, 2009 
3 
{¶ 6} When the cracks began to widen in 2004, the Martins assumed that 
the damage was cosmetic and attempted to address it accordingly.  In the process, 
they discovered that the blocks making up the wall were crumbling and that the 
grout filling had never set.  Realizing that the necessary repairs were going to be 
more difficult than anticipated, the Martins sought professional help. 
{¶ 7} Subsequent consultations with contractors revealed that the 
problem with the wall was structural.  The Martins contacted Design 
Construction, in the hope that the builder would attend to the repairs.  Design 
Construction admitted that an accident during construction affected the garage 
walls, but denied any responsibility to make repairs, claiming that the Martins had 
impaired the condition of the walls by attempting repairs on their own. 
{¶ 8} Thereafter, the Martins hired a professional engineer and 
contractors who found that the subjacent footers were not buried far enough 
below the frost line.  Ultimately, two walls were replaced and the footers were 
repaired at the Martins’ expense. 
{¶ 9} In 2005, the Martins brought suit against Design Construction 
alleging breach of the warranty to perform in a workmanlike manner, breach of 
the warranty of habitability, and negligence in the construction of the home.  A 
jury returned a general verdict for the Martins of $11,770, as the reasonable cost 
to repair the defects.  The jury also answered interrogatories, two of which are 
relevant for our purposes.  In one, the jury found that Design Construction had 
been negligent.  In the other, the jury found that the Martins had not proved a 
diminution in the value of their home due to the defects in construction. 
{¶ 10} 
Design Construction appealed, asserting that the Martins had 
failed to prove a necessary element of damages, namely the difference in the 
market value of the property with and without the defect.  The Ninth District 
Court of Appeals agreed, holding that proof of the diminution in value of the 
home was required for a claim of temporary damage to property, i.e., damage that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
can be repaired, and that the Martins failed to prove such a diminution in value.  
Accordingly, the court of appeals reversed the trial court’s award of damages. 
{¶ 11} 
The Ninth District Court of Appeals found its judgment to be in 
conflict with the judgments of the First District Court of Appeals in Adcock v. 
Rollins Protective Servs. Co.  (1981), 1 Ohio App.3d 160, 1 OBR 471, 440 
N.E.2d 548, and the Eighth District Court of Appeals in Krofta v. Stallard, 
Cuyahoga App. No. 85369, 2005-Ohio-3720, and certified a conflict to this court.  
We recognized the conflict and accepted the Martins’ appeal.  Martin v. Design 
Constr. Servs., 116 Ohio St.3d 1471, 2008-Ohio-153, 879 N.E.2d 781. 
III 
{¶ 12} 
The issue presented is whether in an action for temporary 
damage to property, the plaintiff must prove diminution in the market value of the 
property attributable to the temporary damage.  We hold that plaintiffs need not 
prove diminution in value in order to be awarded damages for temporary injury to 
property. 
{¶ 13} 
This court first established the measure of damages for 
temporary injury to real property in Ohio Collieries Co. v. Cocke (1923), 107 
Ohio St. 238, 140 N.E. 356.  In Ohio Collieries, two coal companies were found 
liable for damage to above-ground property caused by the removal of coal 
underneath—a so-called subsidence case.  Our opinion regarding the proper 
measure of damages caused by the removal of subjacent support included the 
following statement:  
{¶ 14} 
“If the injury is of a permanent or irreparable nature, the measure 
of damages is the difference in the market value of the property as a whole, 
including the improvements thereon, before and after the injury.  If the injury is 
susceptible of repair, the measure of damages is the reasonable cost of restoration, 
plus reasonable compensation for the loss of the use of the property between the 
time of the injury and the restoration, unless such cost of restoration exceeds the 
January Term, 2009 
5 
difference in the market value of the property before and after the injury, in which 
case the difference in market value becomes the measure.”  Ohio Collieries, 107 
Ohio St. at 248-249, 140 N.E. 356. 
{¶ 15} 
Applying the Ohio Collieries rule to this case, the Ninth District 
held that the Martins were not entitled to recover the cost of their repairs, because 
they had failed to prove diminution in value attributable to the injury.  Martin v. 
Design Constr. Servs., Inc., Summit App. No. 23422, 2007-Ohio-4805, ¶ 23.  
Although the court of appeals recognized that the Ohio Collieries rule could be 
applied with “some flexibility,” the court nevertheless held that diminution in 
value was a “limiting factor” on the damages award, such that in no case could an 
award be “grossly disproportionate” to the diminution in value.  Id. at ¶ 19-20.  
The court of appeals held that without proof of this “limiting factor,” the Martins 
could not recover damages, because the jury would not be able to assess whether 
the costs of repair were “grossly disproportionate” to the diminution in value 
caused by the injury.  Id. at ¶ 19-23. 
{¶ 16} 
Other courts of appeals have applied the Ohio Collieries rule 
similarly, requiring proof of diminution in value as an element of damages for 
temporary injury to property.  See, e.g., Shell Oil Co. v. Huttenbauer Land Co. 
(1997), 118 Ohio App.3d 714, 722, 693 N.E.2d 1168 (“We hold that while 
[defendant] did present evidence of the cost to repair its property, the failure to 
present any evidence of the fair market value of the property before and after it 
was closed by [plaintiff] and allowed to fall into disrepair was fatal to its 
counterclaim”); and Reeser v. Weaver Bros., Inc. (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 681, 
692, 605 N.E.2d 1271  (“when restoration costs exceed the diminution in fair 
market value, the diminution of fair market value becomes the measure of 
damages. * * * Moreover, the party seeking restoration costs bears the burden of 
establishing the diminution in the property’s fair market value”). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
{¶ 17} 
However, two cases from this court have implicitly limited the 
holding of Ohio Collieries. 
{¶ 18} 
In the first case, decided just ten years after Ohio Collieries, the 
negligence of a natural gas company led to the damage of one church building and 
the destruction of another.  Northwestern Ohio Natural Gas Co. v. First 
Congregational Church of Toledo (1933), 126 Ohio St. 140, 184 N.E. 512.  In 
deciding whether damages had been properly determined, the court began its 
analysis by noting the difficulty in devising a rule “equally applicable” in all cases 
of negligent destruction of a building.  Id. at 150.  We said that the fundamental 
purpose of law was “to afford to the person damaged compensation for the loss 
sustained.”  (Emphasis sic.)  Id. 
{¶ 19} 
In First Congregational, the court moved away from strict 
market-value limits on damages, toward an approach to damages based on the 
reasonable costs of restoration.  With regard to temporary damage, the court in 
First Congregational excised the diminution-in-value portion of the Ohio 
Collieries rule and offered instead the unqualified rule that “the measure of 
damages is the reasonable cost of restoration or repairs.”  Id. 
{¶ 20} 
Concomitantly, the court recognized that where restoration of the 
property was “impracticable,” the measure of damages would be the “difference 
between the reasonable value immediately before the damage and the reasonable 
value immediately afterwards.”  Id.  The addition of the word “impracticable” to 
the rule instructs the finder of fact to determine whether repairs are “practicable,” 
meaning “reasonably capable of being accomplished.”  Black’s Law Dictionary 
(8th Ed.2004) 1210.  The import of the word “impracticable,” then, is to focus the 
factual inquiry on the reasonableness of restoration under the circumstances, not 
on whether the cost of repairs exceeds the change in the market value of the 
property. 
January Term, 2009 
7 
{¶ 21} 
First Congregational held that even in cases in which the 
property has no market value, damages could still be awarded based on the 
reasonable cost of restoration, with consideration of the condition of the property 
prior to the damage.  First Congregational, 126 Ohio St. at 151, 184 N.E. 512.  
That holding serves to make the injured party whole by allowing for restoration of 
the property when the restoration is accomplished for a reasonable cost.  Thus, 
First Congregational signaled a shift from a diminution-of-market-value 
approach to a reasonable-cost-of-repair approach when deciding the measure of 
compensation for temporary damage to noncommercial real property. 
{¶ 22} 
The second case demonstrating a shift from the Ohio Collieries 
rule is Apel v. Katz (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 11, 697 N.E.2d 600, which addressed 
the damages available for temporary injury to property from trespass.  In Apel, the 
appellant claimed that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury that damages 
were limited to the diminution in market value owing to the wrongful conduct.  
Id. at 20.  This court disagreed, holding that such a rule was too rigid and did not 
allow for flexibility in appropriate cases.  Id.  In Apel, as in First Congregational, 
the court’s opinion did not cite Ohio Collieries.  Yet Apel, like First 
Congregational, recognized that diminution in market value would not always 
provide a sufficient measure of damages.  Further, Apel held that under the 
circumstances in that case, failure to prove diminution in market value was not 
fatal to the claim for damages.  Id. 
{¶ 23} 
Some courts of appeals have applied a rationale similar to that of 
First Congregational and Apel in holding that the failure to prove diminution in 
market value is not fatal to a claim for damages.  For instance, the First District 
Court of Appeals held that the goal of damages is to make the claimant whole, 
and therefore, even when the cost of repairs exceeds the change in market value 
attributable to the tort, damages may be recovered.  Adcock, 1 Ohio App.3d at 
161, 1 OBR 471, 440 N.E.2d 548.  The Adcock court found that failure to prove 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
diminution in value was not fatal to such a claim.  Id.  The Eighth District Court 
of Appeals held similarly in Krofta, 2005-Ohio-3720, wherein it stated: “Usually, 
evidence regarding the diminution in value is needed to determine the 
reasonableness of the restoration costs.  Failure to present such evidence, 
however, is not necessarily fatal to a claim in tort for damages to real property.”  
(Citations omitted.)  Krofta at ¶ 26. 
{¶ 24} 
Now we make express what First Congregational and Apel 
implied.  The rule expressed in Ohio Collieries, that damages for temporary injury 
to property cannot exceed the difference between market value immediately 
before and after the injury, is limited.  In an action based on temporary injury to 
noncommercial real estate, a plaintiff need not prove diminution in the market 
value of the property in order to recover the reasonable costs of restoration, but 
either party may offer evidence of diminution of the market value of the property 
as a factor bearing on the reasonableness of the cost of restoration. 
{¶ 25} 
While evidence of loss in market value of the property may be 
relevant, the essential inquiry is whether the damages sought are reasonable.  
Either party may introduce evidence to support or refute claims of reasonableness, 
including evidence of the change in market value attributable to the temporary 
injury.  But proof of diminution in value is not a required element of the injured 
party’s case. 
{¶ 26} 
Applying this rule to the case before us, we hold that the 
damages awarded by the trial court are supported by the evidence.  The trial 
court’s instructions informed the jury that the Martins should be made whole, 
provided that their expenses were reasonable, and did not instruct the jury that a 
failure to prove diminution in value would prohibit an award. 
{¶ 27} 
Moreover, the award itself appears reasonable under the 
circumstances.  The jury award of $11,770 equals the amount that the Martins 
paid to repair the defects to a house purchased for $167,000.  Although Design 
January Term, 2009 
9 
Construction offered evidence that the repairs could have been performed for less, 
it appears that the jury found that the Martins’ expenditures were appropriate.  
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the damages awarded by the jury 
represented the reasonable costs incurred by the Martins to repair the deficiencies 
in the structure of the garage. 
IV 
{¶ 28} 
We answer the certified question in the negative and reverse the 
judgment of the court of appeals.  The court of appeals decided this case on 
Design Construction’s first assignment of error and declined to address the merits 
of the remaining assignments of error, viewing them as moot.  Therefore, this 
cause is remanded for consideration of the third assignment of error raised by 
Design Construction in the court of appeals, regarding the statute of limitations. 
Judgment reversed 
 and cause remanded. 
PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O'DONNELL, LANZINGER, and 
CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Goldman & Rosen, Ltd., Irving B. Sugerman, and James R. Russell, for 
appellants. 
Pelini, Campbell, Williams & Traub, L.L.C., Craig G. Pelini, and Kristen 
E. Campbell, for appellee. 
______________________