IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS 

INSURANCE COMPANY, etc., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

DAVID MARTIN 

CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, et 

al., 

 Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

Case No. 3:18-cv-166 

JUDGE WALTER H. RICE 

DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF 

DEFENDANT CUSTOM HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING, INC. (DOC. #50); 

SUSTAINING MOTION OF THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT GEORGE ROBERT 

CHARLES, DBA CHARLES PLUMBING TO STRIKE PARAGRAPH 7 OF THE 

AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID MARTIN AND OVERRULING MOTION TO STRIKE 

REMAINDER OF AFFIDAVIT; AND OVERRULING MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT OF THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT GEORGE ROBERT CHARLES, DBA 

CHARLES PLUMBING (DOC. #63) 

Before the Court are two motions for summary judgment: Defendant, 

Custom Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment 

(“Custom Heating’s Motion”), Doc. #50, and Third-Party Defendant, George 

Robert Charles, dba Charles Plumbing’s, Motion for Summary Judgment 

(“Charles Plumbing’s Motion”), Doc. #63. 

Case: 3:18-cv-00166-WHR Doc #: 118 Filed: 10/26/20 Page: 1 of 23 PAGEID #: 2441
2 

 Custom Heating’s Motion is not opposed by Plaintiff, Nationwide 

Agribusiness Insurance Company (”Plaintiff” or “Nationwide”), Doc. #75. Also, 

George Robert Charles, dba Charles Plumbing (“Charles Plumbing”), does not 

oppose the motion although he asserts that the testimony of Custom Heating’s 

expert witness, Kerry Autio (“Autio”), is inadmissible.1 Doc. #79. Defendant, 

Martin Construction Company (“Martin Construction”), has filed a memorandum 

in opposition, Doc. #81, and includes as an exhibit an affidavit of David Martin 

(“Martin Affidavit”). Doc. #81-1. Custom Heating has filed a reply. Doc. #85. 

Nationwide does not oppose Charles Plumbing’s Motion, Doc. #63, and 

Custom Heating has not filed a response. Martin Construction, however, has filed 

a memorandum opposing the motion, Doc. #82, and attaches the Martin Affidavit, 

Doc. #82-1, as an exhibit. Charles Plumbing has filed a reply and requests that the 

affidavit be stricken as a “sham affidavit” pursuant to Aerel, S.R.L. v. PCC Airfoils, 

L.L.C., 448 F.3d 899, 906 (6th Cir. 2006). Doc. #91. 

I. Procedural Issues and Background Facts 

Nationwide, the insurer of the home of Kent and Joan Darding, files this suit 

for subrogation against Martin Construction and Custom Heating. The Amended 

Complaint alleges that an early morning fire occurred at the Darding home on 

January 29, 2017, originating at “the location above the basement fireplace and 

1

Charles has filed a Motion in Limine, Doc. #64, seeking to limit the testimony of Autio, 

Custom Heating’s expert witness. That motion has been overruled by separate Entry.

Case: 3:18-cv-00166-WHR Doc #: 118 Filed: 10/26/20 Page: 2 of 23 PAGEID #: 2442
3 

directly below the first[-]floor fireplace at the front bottom face of the fireplace 

hearth and extension.” Doc.#20, PAGEID#140. Plaintiff alleges that Martin 

Construction, the builder of the home, and Custom Heating, a subcontractor, 

“fabricated, assembled, supplied, constructed and installed the fireplaces in the 

Darding home, including all components, framework and connections necessary 

for same.” Id. 

 The fire at the Darding’s home occurred in the immediate area of the firstfloor fireplace. The finished fireplace had a black mesh screen, no glass doors, a 

gas starter and a stone façade and hearth. Doc. #52, PAGEID#547. The fireplace 

was constructed using a prefabricated fireplace that is also called a “fireplace 

insert” or “fireplace box.” Doc. #57, PAGEID#1059; Doc. #57-1, PAGEID#1195. 

David Martin (“Martin”) of Martin Construction “set the fireplace insert in the 

hole.” Doc. # 57, PAGEID# 1058. When Martin Construction installed the first-floor 

fireplace insert, the wood framing for the chimney chase way2 was in place. The 

flues, chimney cap, stonework for the hearth, the gas line and piping for the gas 

starter, however, were not completed.3 Id., PAGEID#1058-59. Although the 

fireplace was later inspected, Martin Construction does not recall being with an 

2

 A “chimney chase” or “chimney chase way” is the area or structure around the metal 

flue pipes. The chase is usually built with wood or steel studs with an exterior that can 

include brick/stone veneer or wood siding or stucco. 

3

Kuhlman Construction (“Kuhlman”) and David Brannum Construction contracted with 

Martin Construction to build the brick and stonework for the chimney and hearth and 

wood framing for the chase way, respectively. Id. at 1058-1059. They are not joined as 

parties in this litigation.

Case: 3:18-cv-00166-WHR Doc #: 118 Filed: 10/26/20 Page: 3 of 23 PAGEID #: 2443
4 

inspector when that occurred. Doc. #57, PAGEID##1064-65. He also does not 

know if the inspector looked at the construction and placement of the hearth 

during any inspection. Id., PAGEID#1065. 

Custom Heating attached the flues for the first floor and basement 

fireplaces from the point of attachment at the firebox, through the top of the 

chimney chase. It also put the cap on top of the chimney. Doc. #53, PAGEID#602; 

Doc. 53-2, PAGEID#632. Martin Construction supplied the flues to Custom 

Heating. 

Charles Plumbing, a third-party defendant, installed the gas starters in the 

basement and first-floor fireplaces. Doc. #73, PAGEID#2158. The starters were 

located inside each firebox, under the log grate. Doc. #52, PAGEID#547. The 

firebox and flues were already in place when Charles Plumbing installed the gas 

supply line for the gas starters. Doc. #73, PAGEID#2159. To install the gas 

starters, Charles Plumbing had to run a propane gas supply line through the right 

side of the firebox, where a “knockout piece” was located. Id., #73, PAGEID#2158. 

Charles Plumbing testified that he worked with Martin to insulate the location 

where the gas supply line passed through the firebox. Id. He states that Martin 

used a braising rod that Charles Plumbing loaned him to try to pack the insulation 

around the supply pipe. Id. Martin testified in his deposition that he did not look 

to see whether there was insulation in the hole where the propane gas supply line 

went through on the side of the fireplace insert. Doc. #57, PAGEID#1068. 

Case: 3:18-cv-00166-WHR Doc #: 118 Filed: 10/26/20 Page: 4 of 23 PAGEID #: 2444
5 

During the evening of January 28, 2017, Kent Darding started a fire in the 

fireplace. To start the gas for a fire, a gas key valve, located to the right of the 

fireplace, was turned. Id., PAGEID#546. A match was used to light the gas for the 

fire. The gas was turned off once the wood logs began to burn. Id., PAGEID#547. 

Mr. Darding last observed embers in the fireplace at approximately midnight 

when he went to bed. Doc. #52, PAGEID#550. When the smoke alarm sounded at 

approximately 2:30 a.m. on January 29, 2017, Mr. Darding investigated and saw 

fire not in the fireplace but outside “on the sides and underneath, down in the 

lower part.” Id. PAGEID#546. Because this was a fireplace insert, there was a gap 

between the stone and the insert. Flames were present on “both sides and 

underneath it where the stone stopped.” Id., PAGEID#550. 

The Amended Complaint alleges that Martin Construction is in breach of a 

March 16, 2011, contract it entered into with the Dardings to construct their home. 

Doc. #20, PAGEID#154. It further alleges that it is the third-party beneficiary of a 

“Subcontract” between Martin Construction and Custom Heating. Id., 

PAGEID##166-169. The “Subcontract” is dated June 4, 2012, and captioned 

“Registered Builder Contract.” Id. Nationwide also alleges negligence claims 

against both Custom Heating and Charles Plumbing. 

 Martin Construction filed a cross-claim against Custom Heating for 

“indemnity, contribution and /or apportionment,” Doc. #24, and a third-party 

complaint against Charles Plumbing. Doc. #21. Nationwide likewise asserted 

claims, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a)(3), against Charles Plumbing. Doc. #26. 

Case: 3:18-cv-00166-WHR Doc #: 118 Filed: 10/26/20 Page: 5 of 23 PAGEID #: 2445
6 

Each of the five parties have retained expert witnesses to determine the 

cause and origin of the fire. Extensive discovery, including depositions of the 

experts, has been conducted and is now complete. 

II. Standard of Review 

 Summary judgment must be entered “against a party who fails to make a 

showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party=s 

case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex 

Corp.v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The moving party always bears the 

initial responsibility of informing the court of the basis for its motion and 

identifying those portions of the record which it believes demonstrate the absence 

of a genuine issue of material fact. Id. at 323; see also Boretti v. Wiscomb, 930 

F.2d 1150, 1156 (6th Cir. 1991). 

“Once the moving party has met its initial burden, the nonmoving party 

must present evidence that creates a genuine issue of material fact making it 

necessary to resolve the difference at trial.” Talley v. Bravo Pitino Rest., Ltd., 61 

F.3d 1241, 1245 (6th Cir. 1995); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 

242, 250 (1986). Once the burden of production has so shifted, the party opposing 

summary judgment cannot rest on its pleadings or merely reassert its previous 

allegations. It is not sufficient to “simply show that there is some metaphysical 

doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 

475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Rule 56 “requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the 

Case: 3:18-cv-00166-WHR Doc #: 118 Filed: 10/26/20 Page: 6 of 23 PAGEID #: 2446
7 

[unverified] pleadings” and present some type of evidentiary material in support 

of its position. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. “The plaintiff must present more than a 

scintilla of evidence in support of his position; the evidence must be such that a 

jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Michigan Prot. & Advocacy Serv., Inc. 

v. Babin, 18 F.3d 337, 341 (6th Cir. 1994). 

Summary judgment shall be granted “if the movant shows that there is no 

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as 

a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “Summary judgment will not lie if the 

dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a 

reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson, 477 

U.S. at 248. In determining whether a genuine dispute of material fact exists, a 

court must assume as true the evidence of the nonmoving party and draw all 

reasonable inferences in favor of that party. Id. at 255. If the parties present 

conflicting evidence, a court may not decide which evidence to believe. 

Credibility determinations must be left to the fact-finder. 10A Wright, Miller & 

Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure Civil 3d ' 2726 (1998). In determining 

whether a genuine dispute of material fact exists, a court need only consider the 

materials cited by the parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3). “A district court is not . . . 

obligated to wade through and search the entire record for some specific facts 

that might support the nonmoving party=s claim.” InterRoyal Corp. v. Sponseller, 

889 F.2d 108, 111 (6th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1091 (1990). If it so 

Case: 3:18-cv-00166-WHR Doc #: 118 Filed: 10/26/20 Page: 7 of 23 PAGEID #: 2447
8 

chooses, however, the Court may also consider other materials in the record. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3). 

III. Legal Analysis 

A. Custom Heating’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #50) 

Custom Heating’s Motion seeks dismissal of Nationwide’s breach of 

contract and negligence claims and Martin Construction’s cross-claim. The crossclaim alleges that if it is found liable for Plaintiff’s claim, it is entitled to “common 

law and/or contractual indemnification, contribution[,] and/or apportionment” 

from Custom Heating. Its claim for “contractual indemnification” is based on the 

Registered Builder Contract. Doc. #24, PAGEID#223. 

Plaintiff has filed a response stating that it does not oppose Custom 

Heating’s Motion. Doc. #75. Martin Construction, however, argues that Custom 

Heating’s Motion should be denied since this “is an unusual battle of experts.” 

Doc. #81, PAGEID#2200. 

1. Nationwide’s Amended Complaint 

Nationwide, as the “subrogated insurer, stands in the shoes of the insuredsubrogor.“ Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp. v. McKinley, (2011) 130 Ohio St. 3d 

156,162, 956 N.E. 2d 814. (citation omitted). As a subrogated insurer, it has no 

greater rights than those that the Dardings had. Id. Although Plaintiff alleges 

both negligence and breach of contract claims, under Ohio law and the facts of 

this case, its only claim is for breach of an implied duty to construct a home in a 

Case: 3:18-cv-00166-WHR Doc #: 118 Filed: 10/26/20 Page: 8 of 23 PAGEID #: 2448
9 

workmanlike manner based on contract. Kishmarton v. William Bailey Constr., 

Inc., 93 Ohio St. 3d 226, 229, 754 N.E.2d 785, 2001-Ohio-1334 (answering certified 

question that the nature of an action by a vendee against builder-vendor for 

breach of a contract to build a residence in the future is the breach of an implied 

duty to construct the house in a workmanlike manner arising ex contractu 

(emphasis added)); Cf. Velotta v. Leo Petronzio Landscaping, Inc. (1982), 69 Ohio 

St. 2d 376, 433 N.E.2d 147(holding that “[a]n action by a vendee against the 

builder-vendor of a completed residence for damages proximately caused by 

failure to construct in a workmanlike manner using ordinary care—a duty imposed 

by law— is an action in tort * * *”). 

Because the Dardings had no contract with Custom Heating, Nationwide 

alleges it is an intended third-party beneficiary of the Registered Builder Contract 

between Martin Construction and Custom Heating. To create rights as an 

intended third-party beneficiary, Nationwide must establish that the Dardings 

were intended and not incidental third-party beneficiaries to the contract. Huff v. 

FirstEnergy Corp., 130 Ohio St.3d 196, 200, 957 N.E.2d 3, 6 (Ohio 2011); Hill v. 

Sonitrol of Southwestern Ohio, Inc., 36 Ohio St.3d 36, 40, 521 N.E.2d 780, 784 

(Ohio 1988). To determine if a third person is an intended beneficiary, courts 

employ an “intent to benefit” test, Hill, 36 Ohio St.3d at 40, 521 N.E.2d at 784, and 

first look to the parties’ expression of intent “in the language of the agreement.” 

Huff, 130 Ohio St. 3d at 200, 957 N.E.2d at 7. 

Case: 3:18-cv-00166-WHR Doc #: 118 Filed: 10/26/20 Page: 9 of 23 PAGEID #: 2449
10 

The language in the Registered Builder Contract, however, makes no 

reference to the Dardings or to any work to be performed at their home. 

Moreover, Custom Heating has testified that this contract was not for a specific 

job but was “just a general liability contract” for Martin Construction’s “insurance 

audit.” Doc. #53, PAGEID#611. Based on this testimony and the Court’s review of 

the Registered Builder Contract, Nationwide has failed to establish any expression 

of an intent to benefit the Dardings and its contract claim as a third-party 

beneficiary fails. 

Accordingly, because the Court finds that there is no genuine dispute of a 

material fact, Custom Heating’s Motion as to Nationwide’s Amended Complaint is 

sustained. 

2. Martin Construction’s Cross-claim 

 Custom Heating also moves for summary judgment on Martin 

Construction’s cross-claim. The cross-claim asserts contractual indemnification 

based on the Registered Builder Contract, common law indemnification and 

contribution.4 In general, indemnification and contribution claims arise only if a 

loss is suffered requiring a party to pay. Stengel v. Columbus, 74 Ohio App. 3d 

608, 600 N.E. 2d 248 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991) (implied right of indemnity does not 

accrue until the party seeking indemnity actually suffers a loss although the 

4 “Indemnity arises from contract, either express or implied, and is the right of a person, 

who has been compelled to pay what another should have paid, to require complete 

reimbursement.” Worth v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 32 Ohio St. 3d 238, 240, 513 N.E.2d 253, 

256 (Ohio 1987). Contribution in Ohio is governed by statute, R.C. 2307.25. It exists only 

in favor of a tortfeasor who has paid more than its proportionate share. 

Case: 3:18-cv-00166-WHR Doc #: 118 Filed: 10/26/20 Page: 10 of 23 PAGEID #: 2450
11 

language of a contract controls when dealing with an express contract of 

indemnity); Natl. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Whitmer, 70 Ohio St. 2d 149152, 435 N.E. 2d 1121 

(1982) (right of contribution is inchoate and accrues when a party has paid more 

than his share of the joint obligation). 

 In its motion, Custom Heating does not argue that Martin Construction, the 

general contractor, has no legal right to assert a cross-claim against it as a 

subcontractor. Instead, it asserts that, based on the expert testimony, there is no 

genuine dispute of a material fact that its installation of the flues to the fireplaces 

and placement of the cap on top of the chimney caused any damage to the 

Darding home, creating any liability for Martin Construction. Accordingly, it 

argues that its motion for summary judgment on the cross-claim should be 

granted before the issue of liability on Plaintiff’s subrogated claim is resolved. 

 To determine whether Custom Heating’s Motion on Martin Construction’s 

cross-claim should be granted, the Court will review the testimony of the expert 

witnesses. 

Plaintiff has identified two expert witnesses, Jim Hunter (“Hunter”), a cause 

and origin expert, and Nick Leone (“Leone”), an expert in mechanical engineering. 

Both opine that the installation of the flue piping and chimney cap was not 

deficient and did not contribute to the fire. Doc. #54, PAGEID#676; Doc. #56, 

PAGEID#880-881. They instead assert that the fire originated at the first-floor 

fireplace and that the cause of the fire was due to improper installation of the 

fireplace and a “gap” that existed at the front of the fireplace from missing metal 

Case: 3:18-cv-00166-WHR Doc #: 118 Filed: 10/26/20 Page: 11 of 23 PAGEID #: 2451
12 

safety strips. Doc. #54, PAGEID#669; Doc. #56, PAGEID#878. David Jansing, 

Charles Plumbing’s expert witness, agrees with Hunter and Leone as to the origin 

and cause of the fire. He also opines that the installation of the flue piping and 

chimney cap was immaterial to the origin and cause of the fire. Doc. #55, 

PAGEID#853. Custom Heating’s expert witness, Autio, identifies “two possible 

causes” of the fire: improper installation of the first-floor firebox and/or the 

installation of the first-floor gas line. The Court notes that neither of these alleged 

“possible causes,” however, implicates Custom Heating. Doc. #46, PAGEID#394.

5

 

Martin Construction opposes Custom Heating’s Motion arguing that “there 

is a dispute” whether Custom Heating negligently installed the chimney flue 

pipes” on the first-floor fireplace. Doc. #81, PAGEID#2195. It contends that 

“circumstantial evidence” of negligence exists based upon Custom Heating’s 

installation of the flue piping for the basement fireplace. In making this argument, 

Martin Construction relies on the testimony of its expert witness, David Marzola 

(“Marzola”).6 Id., PAGEID#2199. 

 Marzola testifies that the “the cause of the fire is undetermined” and that 

there are “multiple ignition scenarios.” Doc. #58, PAGEID#1289. He states in his 

deposition that there are three improper installation issues that may have caused 

5

Charles Plumbing challenges the opinions of Custom Heating’s expert witness under 

Fed. Evid. R. 702, and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). 

Doc. #64. This Motion is overruled in a separate decision and entry. 

6

Because the Martin Affidavit, included as an exhibit in the response of Martin 

Construction, does not reference Custom Heating or any of its installation work, it will not 

be considered in ruling on Custom Heating’s Motion. Doc. #81-1. 

Case: 3:18-cv-00166-WHR Doc #: 118 Filed: 10/26/20 Page: 12 of 23 PAGEID #: 2452
13 

the fire: (1) “improper installation of the fireplace insert” and failure to install 

metal safety strips, Id., PAGEID##1293,1284; (2) improper installation of “the 

fireplace flue and wood framing” resulting in “inadequate clearance to the wood 

framing at the location between the wood framing and the flue pipe” Id., 

PAGEID##1271 and 1273; and (3) improper installation of the propane gas supply 

line for the fire starter on the first-floor fireplace insert. Id., PAGEID#1293. Marzola 

states in his deposition that he cannot reach a conclusion as to any one of the 

improper installation issues being “more than 50 percent probable to being the 

cause.“ Id. Specifically, as to Custom Heating’s installation, Marzola testifies that 

he could not opine, within a reasonable degree of certainty, that: (1) the first-floor 

installation of the flue had any relationship to causing or contribute to causing the 

fire or (2) that the installation of the basement flue had any relationship to causing 

or contributing to the causing of this fire. Marzola also states that he has no facts 

“to suggest that installation of the chimney chase cap had any relationship 

whatsoever to cause or contribute to cause the fire.” Id., PAGEID#1289. 

 Ohio law is clear that “the expression of probability is a condition precedent 

to the admissibility of expert opinion regarding causation.” Stinson v. England, 69 

Ohio St.3d 451, 455, 633 N.E.2d 532, 537 (1994). This condition precedent “relates 

to the competence of such evidence and not its weight.” Id. Accordingly, an 

expert opinion on causation must be more than a fifty percent likelihood of 

causation. 

Case: 3:18-cv-00166-WHR Doc #: 118 Filed: 10/26/20 Page: 13 of 23 PAGEID #: 2453
14 

Based on the testimony of the expert witnesses, there is no dispute of a 

material fact that Custom Heating’s installation of the flues to the fireplaces and 

placement of the cap on top of the chimney caused any damage to the Darding 

home creating liability for Martin Construction. Marzola’s testimony does not 

establish liability for Custom Heating for either indemnification or contribution, 

whether the claim is for contractual indemnification under the Registered Builder 

Contract or implied indemnification based on the relationship of the parties, 

Mahathiraj v. Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc., 84 Ohio App.3d 554, 563–64, 617 N.E.2d 

737, 743 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992)(implied indemnification exists “where a party owes 

only secondary legal responsibilities and is passively negligent”), Marzola’s 

opinion must be more than a fifty percent likelihood of causation. Id., at 455. 

Similarly, under a claim of contribution, governed by Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 

§ 2307.25(A), Martin Construction must establish that Custom Heating is liable for 

the damages and that it paid more than its proportionate share of the common 

liability. As seen above, Marzola’s testimony does not permit such a conclusion. 

Accordingly, Custom Heating’s Motion as to the cross-claim of Martin 

Construction (Doc. #50) is sustained. 

 

Case: 3:18-cv-00166-WHR Doc #: 118 Filed: 10/26/20 Page: 14 of 23 PAGEID #: 2454
15 

B. Charles Plumbing Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #63) 

Charles Plumbing’s Motion argues that there is no “competent evidence 

that any alleged act or omission of Charles [Plumbing] caused” the fire. Doc. #63, 

PAGEID#1840. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion and contends that “the cause 

of the fire” “is not related to any work of Third[-]Party Defendant Charles.” Doc. 

#76, PAGEID#2174.7 Martin Construction, however, asserts in its third-party 

complaint that Charles Plumbing is liable for “indemnity, contribution[,] and/or 

apportionment”8

 for any recovery it must pay to Plaintiff, Doc. #21, PAGEID#172. 

Martin Construction argues that because the experts assert “multiple causes of 

the fire,” genuine issues of material fact remain that preclude summary judgment. 

Doc. #82, PAGEID#2206. Its response attaches the Martin Affidavit. Doc. #82-1. 

Charles Plumbing contends that the Martin Affidavit should be stricken from 

Martin Construction’s response because it is a “sham affidavit.“ Aerel, S.R.L., 448 

F.3d at 906. 

 Before analyzing Charles Plumbing’s Motion, the Court will first review the 

Martin Affidavit and his prior deposition testimony to determine if is a sham 

affidavit or can be considered in deciding Charles Plumbing’s Motion. 

7

Nationwide states that “the third-party claims asserted by Plaintiff against Third[-]Party 

Defendant Charles by way its Rule 14(a)[ ](3) Complaint also fail as a matter of law in the 

event that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Third[-]Party Defendant Charles is 

granted.” Id., PAGEID#2175. 

8

 Martin Construction has admitted that its Registered Builder Contract with Charles 

Plumbing, dated February 25, 2012, does not apply to the work at the Darding home. Doc. 

#63-1, PAGEID#1859. 

Case: 3:18-cv-00166-WHR Doc #: 118 Filed: 10/26/20 Page: 15 of 23 PAGEID #: 2455
16 

1. The Martin Affidavit. 

It is well-established that a party cannot defeat a motion for summary 

judgment “simply by contradicting his or her own previous sworn statement (by, 

say, filing a later affidavit that flatly contradicts that party’s earlier sworn 

deposition) without explaining the contradiction or attempting to resolve the 

disparity.” Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795, 806 (1999); Kelso v. 

City of Toledo, 77 Fed. Appx. 826, 834 (6th Cir. 2003). If an affidavit directly 

contradicts sworn deposition testimony and there is no “persuasive justification” 

for it, it will be stricken. Aerel, 448 F.3d 908. Absent a direct contradiction, an 

affidavit should not be stricken unless it is an attempt “’to create a sham fact 

issue.’” Id., (quoting Franks v. Nimmo, 796 F.2d 1230, 1237 (10th Cir. 1986)). To 

determine whether the affidavit is creating a sham fact issue, a court must 

examine a “nonexhaustive list of factors” including 

whether the affiant was cross-examined during his earlier testimony, 

whether the affiant had access to the pertinent evidence at the time 

of his earlier testimony or whether the affidavit was based on newly 

discovered evidence, and whether the earlier testimony reflects 

confusion [that] the affidavit attempts to explain. 

Id. at 908–09 (quoting Franks, 796 F.2d at 1237). 

Charles Plumbing first asserts that Martin testified during his deposition 

that after he completed installation of the fireplace and after the hearth had been 

installed, he “did not recall seeing a gap.” Doc. #57, PAGEID#1069. 

Q. But do you recall seeing a gap of the type and size that is depicted 

in the photographs that you just looked at after you had completed 

installation of the fireplace insert and after the hearth had been 

Case: 3:18-cv-00166-WHR Doc #: 118 Filed: 10/26/20 Page: 16 of 23 PAGEID #: 2456
17 

installed at that location? 

A. No. 

Q. You recall no gap? 

A. No. No, that's not your question. Your question was did I recall 

seeing one. 

Q. You do not recall seeing a gap? 

A. Correct. 

Q. You're not saying that there necessarily wasn't a gap, you just don't 

recall seeing a gap? 

A. Correct. 

Doc. #57, PAGEID#1069. 

The Martin Affidavit references a “gap” at the fireplace. The relevant 

portion of the affidavit states, at paragraph 7, that “[T]here was no gap at the front 

of the firebox with exposed combustibles at the time of the completion of 

construction.” Doc. #82-1, PAGEID#2215. This paragraph of the affidavit is a direct 

contradiction of Martin’s May 10, 2019, deposition testimony and provides no 

explanation for this change in testimony. Accordingly, paragraph 7 of the Martin 

Affidavit is stricken and the Court will not consider it in deciding Charles 

Plumbing’s Motion. 

The remainder of the Martin Affidavit does not directly contradict Martin’s 

earlier deposition testimony. Moreover, based on a review of Martin’s deposition 

testimony, it should not be stricken as a “sham affidavit.” Martin’s deposition 

testimony states that there “was a wooden floor system,” Doc. #57, PAGEID#1069, 

Case: 3:18-cv-00166-WHR Doc #: 118 Filed: 10/26/20 Page: 17 of 23 PAGEID #: 2457
18 

and that a subcontractor did the stonework for the hearth. Doc. #57, 

PAGEID#1058. He also testified that he did not recall if metal safety strips came 

with the fireplace insert but, if they did, he would have installed them. Id., 

PAGEID##1068-1069. Additionally, with respect to Charles Plumbing, Martin’s 

deposition states that he did not look to see whether insulation was provided at 

the location where this propane gas supply line went through the hole on the side 

of the fireplace insert. Id., PAGEID#1068. According to his deposition, Martin also 

could not recall participating in packing insulation into the wall outside of the 

insert (emphasis added). Id., PAGEID#1078. 

The Martin Affidavit regarding these topics reads as follows: 

4. There was a hearth extension in front of the fireplace which was 

made of wood framing, covered in OSB board. 

5. At some time after the installation of the firebox, the masonry subcontractor installed metal mesh into which he troweled cement. He 

covered this with cement board flush with the metal fireplace insert. 

Then he covered the hearth extension with stone. There was no OSB 

left exposed. (See Hunter &Leone Report, Document 63-2, Page 51 of 

63, Page I.D. 1917, and Document 63-2, Page 56 of 63, Page I.D. 1922.) 

6. Such materials are not combustible. 

8. I did not assist with the installation of the gas line or the gas log 

starter. 

9. I did not have any role or take part in insulating the hole through 

which the gas line was installed. Such was done solely by Charles 

Plumbing. 

Doc. #82-1, PAGEID#2215. 

Case: 3:18-cv-00166-WHR Doc #: 118 Filed: 10/26/20 Page: 18 of 23 PAGEID #: 2458
19 

Although Martin’s deposition testimony shows that he was cross-examined 

on some of the topics that appear in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 of his affidavit, he 

was not specifically questioned about them. Martin was “under no obligation to 

volunteer information not fairly sought by the questioner.” Aerel, S.R.L., 448 F.3d 

at 907. Nor did he respond to the deposition questions in a way that indicated a 

total lack of knowledge on these subjects. An affidavit should not reflexively be 

stricken since it can fill “a gap left open by the moving party and thus provides the 

district court with more information, rather than less, at the crucial summary 

judgment stage.” Id. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 of the Martin Affidavit do not 

contradict Martin’s prior deposition testimony nor do they create a sham fact 

issue. As such, paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 will not be stricken and will be 

considered by the Court in ruling on Charles Plumbing’s Motion. 

2. Charles Plumbing’s Alleged Failure to Insulate the Hole in the 

Fireplace Insert. 

Charles Plumbing argues that whether Martin Construction’s cross-claim is 

for implied indemnification or contribution,9

 it fails since there is no “competent 

evidence” showing that there exists a causal connection between the alleged lack 

of insulation in the gas supply line running through the right side of the fireplace 

insert and the fire. Doc. #63, PAGEID#1840. He asserts that based on the testimony 

of all of the expert witnesses, there is no genuine issue of a material fact that his 

alleged failure to insulate was the cause of the fire. Because the expert testimony 

9

See, n. 4, supra. 

Case: 3:18-cv-00166-WHR Doc #: 118 Filed: 10/26/20 Page: 19 of 23 PAGEID #: 2459
20 

differs somewhat from that analyzed in Custom Heating’s Motion, the Court will 

review this testimony as it pertains to Charles Plumbing’s Motion. 

Although Nationwide’s expert witnesses, Hunter and Leone, opine that the 

cause of the fire was the fireplace installation and the failure to install safety 

strips, Leone, a mechanical engineer, testifies that an alleged failure to “repack” 

the fiberglass insulation in the hole where the gas supply line goes into the 

fireplace insert is a “deficiency.” Doc. #54, PAGEID##677 and 672-73; Doc. #56, 

PAGEID#882; Doc. #54, PAGEID#669; Doc. #56, PAGEID#878. Leone explains, 

however, that this “deficiency” was not a cause of the fire. Doc. #56, 

PAGEID#882. Charles Plumbing’s expert witness, David Jansing, is in agreement 

with Plaintiff’s experts as to the cause and origin of the fire. Doc. #55, 

PAGEID#851. 

Martin Construction argues that Charles Plumbing’s Motion cannot be 

granted since Marzola, Martin Construction’s expert witness, and Autio, Custom 

Heating’s expert witness, opine that the failure to insulate may have caused the 

fire. Marzola testifies that the alleged missing insulation at the juncture of the 

propane gas supply line into the fireplace insert is one of three possible 

“scenarios” of the fire. He opines, however, that none of the three possible 

causes are greater than 50 percent. Doc. #58, PAGEID#1289-90. Moreover, this 

expert witness testifies that he could not give an opinion that the alleged missing 

insulation was more likely than not the cause of the fire. Id., PAGEID#1290. 

Case: 3:18-cv-00166-WHR Doc #: 118 Filed: 10/26/20 Page: 20 of 23 PAGEID #: 2460
21 

Autio testifies, “within a reasonable degree of certainty,” that there are only 

two “possible causes” for the fire: “heat coming out through the hole provided for 

the gas line on the right side of the firebox” or embers coming out from the 

fireplace and falling through between the juncture of the hearth and the firebox. 

Doc.#59, PAGEID#1409. As to the first “possible cause,” Autio explains that heat 

from the fireplace traveled through the uninsulated hole resulting in the wood 

frame drying out, lowering its ignition temperature and creating pyrolysis, the 

drying out of wood. Doc. #59, PAGEID#1840. At some unspecified point in time, it 

“potentially will catch fire [and] ignite.” Id., PAGEID#1414. He asserts that 

pyrolysis could occur in a span of five years, the approximate amount of time that 

the Dardings lived in their home, but admits that he did no test to determine the 

amount of heat transfer required to create pyrolysis on the framing of the 

fireplace. Id, PAGEID#1438. Autio also testifies in his deposition that he was 

skeptical of the second “possible cause” of the fire, embers falling through a gap 

between the hearth and the fireplace insert. He states that as between the two 

“possible causes,” it was “hard to imagine that many embers coming out and 

dropping down” and causing the fire “but I can’t eliminate it.” Id., PAGEID#1433. 

He testifies that the ignition source for the fire “would probably most likely have 

been the heat from the fireplace” and not embers or sparks escaping out of the 

uninsulated hole. Id., PAGEID#1414. 

Ohio law is clear that experts are “precluded from engaging in speculation 

or conjecture with respect to possible causes.“ Stinson, 69 Ohio St.3d at 457. 

Case: 3:18-cv-00166-WHR Doc #: 118 Filed: 10/26/20 Page: 21 of 23 PAGEID #: 2461
22 

Moreover, expert opinions must be expressed in terms of probability. Id. at 455. 

Although Marzola and Autio may rebut Plaintiff’s theories with alternative causes, 

once offered, the alternative causes “must be expressed in terms of probability 

irrespective of whether the proponent of the evidence bears the burden of 

persuasion with respect to the issue.” Id. at 451. 

The deposition testimony establishes that Marzola cannot state an opinion 

that Charles Plumbing’s alleged failure to insulate is more likely than not the 

proximate cause of the fire. Accordingly, Marzola’s expert testimony does not 

create a genuine issue of a material fact as to Charles Plumbing’s Motion. The 

same, however, cannot be said of Autio’s testimony. Although this expert 

repeatedly testifies in his deposition as to two “possible causes,” he also testifies 

that the ignition source for the fire “would probably most likely have been the 

heat from the fireplace” and not the theory of the gap implicating Martin 

Construction. Id., PAGEID#1414. Because the evidence must be viewed in the 

light most favorable to the nonmoving party and credibility judgments should not 

be made in deciding motions for summary judgment, Autio’s testimony of 

“probably most likely” precludes summary judgment. 

IV. Conclusion 

For the reasons set forth above, the Motion for Summary Judgment of 

Defendant Custom Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., Doc. #50, is SUSTAINED. The 

Motion of Third-Party Defendant George Robert Charles, dba Charles Plumbing, to 

Case: 3:18-cv-00166-WHR Doc #: 118 Filed: 10/26/20 Page: 22 of 23 PAGEID #: 2462
23 

Strike paragraph 7 of the affidavit of David Martin, Doc. #82-1, is SUSTAINED and 

OVERRULED as to the remainder of the affidavit. The Motion for Summary 

Judgment of Third-Party Defendant George Robert Charles, dba Charles 

Plumbing, Doc. #63, is OVERRULED. 

The following claims remain pending for trial: (1) Plaintiff Nationwide 

Agribusiness Insurance Company’s claims as alleged in its Amended Complaint 

against Defendant David Martin Construction Company, Doc. #20; (2) Plaintiff 

Nationwide’s cross-claims against substituted party William P. Allen, 

Administrator of the Estate of George Robert Charles for George Robert Charles 

dba Charles Plumbing, Doc. #26; and (3) Defendant David Martin Construction 

Company’s Third-Party Complaint against substituted party William P. Allen, 

Administrator of the Estate of George Robert Charles for George Robert Charles 

dba Charles Plumbing, Doc. #21. 

Date: October 26, 2020 

_________________________________ 

WALTER H. RICE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

(tp - per Judge Rice authorization after his review)

Case: 3:18-cv-00166-WHR Doc #: 118 Filed: 10/26/20 Page: 23 of 23 PAGEID #: 2463