Title: LaPuma v. Collinwood Concrete

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

LaPuma et al., Appellants, v. Collinwood Concrete, Appellee. 
[Cite as LaPuma v. Collinwood Concrete (1996),        Ohio St.3d       .] 
Real property -- Oral contract to install brown concrete driveway -- 
Defective concrete furnished by third party -- Tort action for 
product liability not maintainable, when -- Tort action for breach 
of implied warranty maintainable, when. 
 
(No. 94-1128-- Submitted September 13, 1995-- Decided March 4, 
1996.) 
Although a cause of action may concern a product, it is not a product liability 
claim within the purview of Ohio’s product liability statutes unless it 
alleges damages other than economic ones, and a failure to allege other 
than economic damages does not destroy the claim, but rather removes it 
from the purview of those statutes. 
 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 64882. 
 
In May 1988, plaintiff-appellant Matt LaPuma negotiated an oral 
contract with Ralph Camillo of D & D Cement (“D&D”) to replace the La 
Pumas’ limestone driveway with a concrete driveway.  LaPuma had a special 
 
2
request -- the driveway’s color should be brown.  A D&D representative 
recommended defendant-appellee Collinwood Shale, Brick & Supply Company 
(“Collinwood,” incorrectly named in the appellants’ complaint as “Collinwood 
Concrete”) to supply the colored concrete for the project.  The LaPumas 
contacted Collinwood, which sent its sales manager, Mark Stedman, to the 
LaPumas’ home with color charts.  The LaPumas chose chocolate brown.   
 
Collinwood delivered and poured the concrete later in May 1988.  
Several months later, the appellants began to notice “little specks, maybe an 
eighth by an eighth, here and there.”  The specks were a different color from 
the rest of the driveway.  The LaPumas complained to Collinwood, which 
attempted to remedy the problem several times.  Those attempts failed.  The 
LaPumas’ chocolate brown driveway was, instead, chocolate chip. 
 
On March 17, 1992, the LaPumas sued Collinwood, alleging that 
Collinwood was liable for negligently installing the driveway and for breaching 
an implied warranty of workmanlike quality.  The LaPumas alleged that they 
had suffered “property and repair damages.”  The trial court granted 
 
3
Collinwood’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the LaPumas had 
suffered only economic loss, and thus could not recover since they were not in 
privity with Collinwood.  The trial court also held that an implied warranty of 
fitness does not apply to color. 
 
The appellate court ruled in Collinwood’s favor on different grounds.  
That court affirmed on the ground that Ohio’s product liability statutes, R.C. 
2307.71 to 2307.79, preempt all common-law actions relating to defective 
products.  The court held that since the LaPumas had suffered only “economic 
loss” as defined in R.C. 2307.71(B), they did not suffer any “harm” as defined 
by R.C. 2307.71(G).  Since such harm is a prerequisite to recovering economic 
damages pursuant to R.C. 2307.79, the court reasoned, the LaPumas could not 
recover for their economic losses. 
 
This matter is now before this court upon an allowance of a discretionary 
appeal. 
__________ 
 
4
 
Reminger & Reminger Co., L.P.A., and Nicholas D. Satullo, for 
appellants. 
 
Weston, Hurd, Fallon, Paisley & Howley, Timothy D. Johnson and 
Gregory E. O’Brien for appellee. 
__________ 
 
Pfeifer, J.   We find that since appellants’ claim is not a product liability 
claim pursuant to statute, R.C. 2307.71 to 2307.80 do not preempt their cause 
of action.  Instead, they have a possible claim for breach of an implied warranty 
against Collinwood. 
I 
 
Ohio’s product liability statutes, by their plain language, neither cover 
nor abolish claims for purely economic loss caused by defective products.  The 
appellate court correctly noted that the damages the LaPumas sought in their 
complaint were economic.  They were suing for the replacement cost of the 
driveway, and “economic loss” is defined in 2307.71(B) as follows: 
 
5
 
“‘Economic loss’ means direct, incidental, or consequential pecuniary 
loss, including, but not limited to, damage to the product in question, and 
nonphysical damage to property other than that product. * * *” 
 
A cause of action for damage to the product itself, i.e., a cause of action 
alleging only economic damages, is not included in the statutory definition of a 
“product liability claim” contained in R.C. 2307.71(M): 
 
“‘Product liability claim’ means a claim that is asserted in a civil action 
and that seeks to recover compensatory damages from a manufacturer or 
supplier for death, physical injury to person, emotional distress, or physical 
damage to property other than the product in question * * * .” (Emphasis 
added.) 
 
Since the LaPumas’ claim was based only on damage to the driveway 
itself, their claim is not a product liability claim controlled by the R.C. 2307.71 
to 2307.80.  Ohio’s statutory scheme recognizes that claims like the LaPumas’ 
 
6
may arise, and R.C. 2307.72(C) acknowledges that plaintiffs with such claims 
may have a common-law remedy: 
 
“Any recovery of compensatory damages for economic loss based on a 
claim that is asserted in a civil action, other than a product liability claim, is not 
subject to sections 2307.71 to 2307.79 of the Revised Code, but may occur 
under the common law of this state or other applicable sections of the Revised 
Code.” 
 
Thus, R.C. 2307.72 makes it clear that although a cause of action may 
concern a product, it is not a product liability claim within the purview of 
Ohio’s product liability statutes unless it alleges damages other than economic 
ones, and that a failure to allege other than economic damages does not destroy 
the claim, but rather removes it from the purview of those statutes. 
II 
 
The LaPumas do have a common-law claim against Collinwood.  In 
Iacono v. Anderson Concrete Corp. (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 88, 71 O.O.2d 66, 
 
7
326 N.E.2d 267, this court allowed a plaintiff to recover against a concrete 
supplier for damage to the plaintiff’s new driveway.  In Iacono, small, round 
holes formed in the plaintiff’s driveway soon after a contractor completed 
installing it, and the plaintiff brought suit against the contractor and the 
supplier for the damage to the driveway itself.  Despite the lack of privity 
between the plaintiff and the supplier, this court held that the plaintiff could 
maintain a tort action against the supplier based upon a theory of breach of 
implied warranty.  While the imperfections to the driveway in the present case 
concern its color, we do not find that that significantly distinguishes this case 
from Iacono.  Therefore, the LaPumas may pursue a claim of breach of implied 
warranty against Collinwood. 
 
We therefore reverse the judgment of the court of appeals, vacate the 
judgment of the trial court, and remand the cause to the trial court for further 
proceedings. 
 
 
8
Judgment reversed 
and cause remanded. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS and RESNICK, JJ., concur. 
 
WRIGHT and COOK, JJ., concur separately. 
 
F.E. SWEENEY, J., concurs in judgment only. 
 
Cook, J., concurring.  While I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the 
appellant’s claim for breach of implied warranty is not preempted by R.C. 2307.71 through 
2307.80, I also believe that the language employed by the majority implies an exclusion that 
is overly broad.  Accordingly, I write separately. 
 
In the syllabus of today’s opinion, this court holds that any cause of action alleging 
purely economic damages is removed from the purview of R.C. 2307.71 through 2307.80.  In 
so holding, the majority relies upon R.C. 2307.72(C), which states: 
 
“Any recovery of compensatory damages for economic loss based on a claim that is 
asserted in a civil action, other than a product liability claim, is not subject to sections 
2307.71 to 2307.80 of the Revised Code, but may occur under the common law of this state 
or other applicable sections of the Revised Code.” (Emphasis added.) 
 
The phrase “product liability claim” is defined in R.C. 2307.71(M) as follows: 
 
9
 
“‘Product liability claim’ means a claim that is asserted in a civil action and that seeks 
to recover compensatory damages from a manufacturer or supplier for death, physical injury 
to person, emotional distress, or physical damage to property other than the product in 
question[.]”  (Emphasis added.)   
 
I interpret R.C. 2307.72(C) to exclude only a very narrow class of cases from the 
purview of R.C. 2307.71 through 2307.80, that is, cases where the damages sought relate 
solely to the product itself.  Any other cause of action fitting within the definition of a 
“product liability claim” is preempted by the operation of  R.C. 2307.71 through 2307.80. 
 
“Economic loss” as defined in R.C. 2307.71(B) encompasses “direct, incidental, or 
consequential pecuniary loss, including, but not limited to, damage to the product in question, 
and nonphysical damage to property other than that product.” (Emphasis added.)  Clearly 
then, economic loss can flow from damages other than those caused to the defective product 
itself.  In such a case, the claimant may recover economic losses only after establishing an 
entitlement to recover compensatory damages for harm from a manufacturer or supplier. R.C. 
2307.79.  “Harm” as defined in R.C. 2307.71(G) means “death, physical injury to person, 
serious emotional distress, or physical damage to property other than the product in 
question.”  
 
In light of the foregoing,  R.C. 2307.71 through 2307.80 preempts all similar theories 
of recovery existing at common law or arising under another section of the Revised Code in 
 
10
those cases wherein a claimant alleges purely economic losses other than those arising from 
damage to the product in question.  Because today’s syllabus suggests that such cases are 
removed from the operation of R.C. 2307.71 through 2307.80, I cannot join in the majority’s 
opinion.     
WRIGHT, J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion.