Court Opinion

ID: 9385903
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-10 17:07:09.011387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:57.133456
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Menard, Inc. v. DiPaolo Indus. Dev., L.L.C., 2023-Ohio-1188.]

                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                           ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                TRUMBULL COUNTY

MENARD, INC.,                                          CASE NO. 2022-T-0032

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                       Civil Appeal from the
        - vs -                                         Court of Common Pleas

DIPAOLO INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT, LLC,                                      Trial Court No. 2015 CV 00169

                 Defendant-Appellant.

                                              OPINION

                                  Decided: April 10, 2023
                 Judgment: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded

Julian T. Emerson, Reminger Co., LPA, 101 West Prospect Avenue, Suite 1400,
Cleveland, OH 44115 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Michael A. Partlow, 112 South Water Street, Suite C, Kent, OH 44240 (For Defendant-
Appellant).

MATT LYNCH, J.

        {¶1}     Defendant-appellant, DiPaolo Industrial Development, LLC, appeals the

judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas in favor of plaintiff-appellee,

Menard, Inc. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment

of the lower court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

        {¶2}     On January 29, 2015, Menard filed a Complaint against DiPaolo Industrial

raising claims of Breach of Contract (Count I), Breach of Express Warranty (Count II),

Indemnification (Count III), and Conversion (Count IV). The Complaint was based on the
following allegations: “Menard and Defendant entered into a written agreement * * * for

work to be performed by DiPaolo at a new Menard’s location in Warren, Ohio * * *, the

scope of which included demolition, concrete-crushing, salvage, storage, and milling of

asphalt services. * * * As a result of DiPaolo’s failure to timely complete its work despite

Menard’s requests, Menard was compelled to hire another contractor to complete

DiPaolo’s work and correct defective and non-conforming work.”

       {¶3}   On December 16, 2015, DiPaolo Industrial filed an Answer and

Counterclaim raising claims for Breach of Contract (Count One), Unjust Enrichment

(Count Two), Foreclosure of Mechanic’s Lien (Count Three), and Defamation of

Character (Count Four). DiPaolo asserted that it performed its obligations under the

contract and Menard had failed to remit payment pursuant to its terms. Furthermore, it

was alleged that “DiPaolo and Menard agreed [per change orders] to DiPaolo performing

additional work on the project related to the original demolition scope of the work” and

“Menard failed to timely approve and remit payment for the Change Orders.”

       {¶4}   On October 17, 2017, the trial court granted partial summary judgment in

favor of Menard on DiPaolo’s claims for Breach of Contract and Unjust Enrichment with

respect to the change orders only.

       {¶5}   On July 26 and 27, and on October 11, 2018, trial was held before a

magistrate.

       {¶6}   On May 13, 2019, the Magistrate’s Decision was issued. The magistrate

found in favor of Menard with respect to both the claims of the Complaint and

Counterclaim based on the following Findings of Fact:

                                             2

Case No. 2022-T-0032
               1. James Carlson is the Assistant General Manager of Store
               Planning and Construction for Plaintiff.1

               2. Sergio DiPaolo is the Managing Member of Defendant.

               3. Plaintiff issued an October 1, 2013 “Invitation to Bid” packet of
               documents for potential bidders, which comprised of demolition
               plans, site plans, environmental report, soils report, specifications,
               and a sample contract.

               ***

               5. Defendant received and reviewed the Invitation to Bid documents
               before entering into contract with Plaintiff.

               ***

               11. The Invitation to Bid stated, “The work to be performed hereunder
               should be commenced and completed on or before the dates as
               shown in the contract. The general contractor agrees that time is of
               the essence and that the times stated shall only be modified by
               written agreement of the parties. Completion means all work
               including punch list item complete and all inspections complete. The
               contractor agrees that the owner will suffer financial loss if the project
               is not completed on the completion date.”

               ***

               16. Sergio DiPaolo reviewed the contract and signed the contract on
               behalf of Defendant.

               ***

               18. The contract entered into was to be enforced in conjunction with
               the Invitation to Bid documents.

               19. The contract was for the sum of $286,000.

               ***

               22. Per the contract, “Contractor shall not perform any extra or
               additional work or changes from the contract documents unless
               previously authorized in writing by an AIA change order signed by

1. References to the trial transcript and exhibits included in the Magistrate’s Decision are omitted
throughout the Findings of Fact.
                                                 3

Case No. 2022-T-0032
            Troy       Anderson,     the      General       Manager    Store
            Planning/Design/Construction. Portions of change order work are
            subject to merchandise credit check. Owner’s project managers are
            not authorized to approve changes in the work.”

            23. Defendant admitted that nowhere in the contract does it state
            Defendant could perform additional work simply off a verbal
            communication go ahead.

            24. Per the contract, “The work to be performed hereunder shall be
            commenced by November 11, 2013, and have demolition completed
            on or before December 27, 2013, and complete crushing by January
            31, 2014 (“Agreement Period”). CONTRACTOR agrees that TIME
            IS OF THE ESSENCE and that the above stated dates shall not be
            modified unless the modification is in writing and signed by the
            OWNER and CONTRACTOR. Inclement weather shall not be
            considered as a cause for an extension of time or completion of the
            work.”

            25. Plaintiff contends that time was of the essence for completion of
            the work because Plaintiff intended on constructing a new Menard
            store once demolition was completed.

            26. When Defendant returned the signed contract, he also included
            an “addendum” dated November 11, 2013 which purported to extend
            the time period for crushing the asphalt due to adverse weather
            conditions. The addendum was not signed by Defendant or any
            representative of Plaintiff. Defendant contends that because Plaintiff
            never informed him that the addendum was rejected that it is binding
            on the parties. However, Jim Carlson specifically testified that the
            proper protocol to change or add terms to the contract would be for
            Troy Anderson to agree to it and sign off on any change.

            27. Per the contract, “Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless
            owner, its agents and its employees from any and all liability,
            damages, expenses, claims, demands, actions, or cause of action,
            including attorney fees, arising out of the performance of the Contract
            Documents, Agreement and/or work hereunder, whether such
            liability, damages, expenses, claims, demands, actions or causes of
            action are caused by contractor, its subcontractors, or lower tiered
            contractors, or their agents or employees, owner, its agents and its
            employees, or any persons acting on their behalf of owner and/or
            contractor.”

            28. Defendant admitted that similar to the Invitation to Bid
            documents, the contract once again laid out the payment procedure,
                                           4

Case No. 2022-T-0032
            which was the usual AIA payment procedure that Defendant was
            accustomed to from other projects.

            29. Defendant received a December 17, 2013 correspondence from
            Plaintiff returning Defendant’s first payment application because it
            did not properly follow the payment procedure in the contract.

            30. Defendant understood Plaintiff’s rationale for rejecting the first
            payment application and had no issues.

            31. Upon remedying the issues with payment application one,
            Defendant resubmitted and was paid $143,590.50.

            32. Defendant received a January 31, 2014 correspondence from
            Plaintiff that expressed concerns Plaintiff was having with
            Defendant’s work as it pertained to the project.          [Similar
            correspondence was received by the Defendant on April 3, April 25,
            May 6, and May 16.]

            33. Defendant received a March 12, 2014 seven-day notice letter
            from Plaintiff that expressed concerns Plaintiff was having with
            Defendant’s work as it pertained to the project, along with a list of
            items that still needed to be completed. [A similar seven-day notice
            was received by the defendant on April 8.]

            34. Defendant received a March 17, 2014 correspondence from
            Plaintiff regarding the rejection of pay application 2.

            35. Upon remedying pay application 2 in accordance with the
            contract, Defendant resubmitted pay application 2 and was paid
            $70,902.

            ***

            41. Defendant admitted that it was possible the list of contractual
            items in the May 16, 2014 correspondence still had not been
            completed by Defendant.

            42. Defendant received a May 22, 2014 correspondence from
            Plaintiff regarding back charges for the contractual work Defendant
            did not perform which Plaintiff paid McConnell Excavating to
            complete.

            43. Defendant received a May 29, 2014 correspondence from
            Plaintiff titled “Final Notice Breach of Contract/ Abandonment of
            Property/ Trespass to Chattels”, which stated “This serves as your
                                          5

Case No. 2022-T-0032
            final notice that DiPaolo Industrial Development has failed to fulfill its
            obligations under the contract and impaired Menard, Inc. in its use of
            its property including the certain premises located at 2057 Elm Road,
            Cortland, Ohio, and implements that belong to that property…
            Please remove construction equipment and other property left
            behind at the above site within five days of the date of this letter and
            remit the property of Menard, Inc., including the fencing that you
            possess. The failure to timely make these actions will result in a
            lawsuit against you where Menard, Inc., will seek judgment against
            you and avail itself of all potential remedies and recover for all
            available costs.”

            44. Defendant received a July 8, 2014 correspondence from Plaintiff
            rejecting pay applications 3, 4, and 5 because they did not comply
            with the contract.

            45. Defendant attempted to bill Plaintiff for final payment despite
            admittedly not completing all of its contractual work. [In total, Plaintiff
            paid Defendant two payments under the contract in the amount of
            $143,590.50 and $70,902, totaling $214,492.50.]

            ***

            51. According to Plaintiff, Plaintiff withheld payment from Defendant
            because of defective work not remedied and a reasonable indication
            that the work would not be completed within the agreement period.

            ***

            54. Plaintiff terminated the contract with Defendant because it
            determined that Defendant did not complete its contractual work and
            would not be able to complete its contractual work on time.

            ***

            65. Plaintiff hired McConnell Excavating to complete Defendant’s
            contractual work. [Plaintiff made three payments to McConnell
            Excavating in the amounts of $16,245, $117,944.50, and $3,215.34
            for completing Defendant’s contractual work.]

            ***

            74. Plaintiff back charged Defendant total amounts of $17,869.50,
            $129,738.95, and $3,536.87, which included the three payments
            made to McConnell Excavating and the contractual 10%
            administrative fee.
                                             6

Case No. 2022-T-0032
               ***

               75. Defendant admitted that it did not leave the site and remove all
               of its machinery until mid-May to early June 2014.

               76. Defendant admitted that it did not complete all its contractual
               work and went through various items that were not completed.

               77. Defendant removed fencing from the demolition project without
               permission.

               78. Plaintiff made repeated requests that Defendant return the
               fencing.

               79. Defendant admitted that it never returned the fencing or
               reimbursed Plaintiff for the fencing it took.

               80. Defendant admitted that it never informed Plaintiff of the location
               of the fence to enable Plaintiff to retrieve the fence.

               81. Defendant admitted that it no longer has control of the facility
               where the fencing is currently stored.

               82. The replacement value of the fencing is approximately $25,000.

               ***

               85. No evidence was presented that Plaintiff published a false
               statement about Defendant.

       {¶7}    On October 7, 2019, a second Magistrate’s Decision was issued awarding

damages. Menard was awarded a total of $274,379.88, representing $69,357.82 for

contractual or construction damages2, $25,000 for conversion, and $180,022.06 for

attorney fees.

2. This figure was based on the original contractual price of $286,000 plus $8,000 for additional work
performed by DiPaolo for a total contract price of $294,000. From this figure was subtracted the
$214,492.50 Menard paid to DiPaolo and $148,865.32 in back charges as a result of hiring McConnell
Excavating to complete the contractual work.
                                                  7

Case No. 2022-T-0032
       {¶8}   On March 21, 2022, after hearing DiPaolo Industrial’s objections to the

Magistrate’s Decisions, the trial court adopted both Decisions.

       {¶9}   On April 19, 2022, DiPaolo Industrial filed a Notice of Appeal. On appeal,

DiPaolo Industrial raises the following assignments of error:

              [1.] The trial court [erred] by granting partial summary judgment to
              plaintiff on defendant’s counterclaims.

              [2.] The trial court’s decision that defendant breached its contract
              with plaintiff is not supported by the weight of the evidence and is
              contrary to Ohio law.

              [3.] The trial court’s findings that defendant removed salvaged
              fencing from the jobsite without permission to do so and that plaintiff
              was damaged in the sum of $25,000 are not supported by [the]
              manifest weight of the evidence.

              [4.] The trial court erred as a matter of law by awarding counsel fees
              to plaintiff.

              [5.] The trial court’s determination that defendant had produced no
              evidence indicating that plaintiff published a false and defamatory
              statement regarding defendant is not supported by the manifest
              weight of the evidence.

       {¶10} In the first assignment of error, DiPaolo argues the trial court erred by

granting partial summary judgment with respect to its counterclaims for Breach of

Contract and Unjust Enrichment.

       {¶11} Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine issue as to

any material fact and * * * the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,” i.e.,

when “reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse

to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being

entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the party’s favor.”

                                              8

Case No. 2022-T-0032
Civ.R. 56(C). An appellate court’s “review of a summary-judgment ruling is de novo.”

Fradette v. Gold, 157 Ohio St.3d 13, 2019-Ohio-1959, 131 N.E.3d 12, ¶ 6.

       {¶12} In the course of the parties’ dealings with each other, DiPaolo Industrial

submitted eight Change Orders to Menard for additional work not contemplated by the

original Construction Contract.     This Contract provided as follows with respect to

additional work:

              ARTICLE 2: CHANGES IN THE WORK –

                     OWNER [Menard], without invalidating this contract, may, at
              any time, order changes in the work within the general scope of this
              contract. CONTRACTOR [DiPaolo] shall not perform any extra or
              additional work or changes from the Contract Documents
              unless previously authorized in writing by an AIA change order
              signed by Troy Anderson, the General Manager Store
              Planning/Design /Construction. Portions of change order work
              are subject to merchandise credit check. OWNER’s project
              managers are not authorized to approve changes in the work.

       {¶13} With respect to such contractual provisions, the Ohio Supreme Court has

held: “It is universally recognized that where a building or construction contract, public or

private, stipulates that additional, altered, or extra work must be ordered in writing, the

stipulation is valid and binding upon the parties, and no recovery can be had for such

work without a written directive therefore in compliance with the terms of the contract,

unless waived by the owner or employer.” Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc. v. Franklin

Cty. Convention Facilities Auth., 78 Ohio St.3d 353, 360, 678 N.E.2d 519 (1997). Under

the first assignment of error, DiPaolo asserts “the question presented is whether or not

material questions of fact exist as to Menard’s waiver of the change order procedures

contained in the original contract between the parties.” Assignments of Error and Brief of

Appellant, at 17.

                                             9

Case No. 2022-T-0032
       {¶14} With respect to waiver of such contractual provisions, the Ohio Supreme

Court has held: “It is familiar law that stipulations in written contracts may be waived by

the parties, and that a construction placed by the parties upon a written contract in the

progress of its performance, with full knowledge of all the circumstances, will be binding.

* * * This rule is peculiarly just when applied to building contracts, when changes are

made, the necessity for which develops as the work progresses, and while the parties are

intent on the accomplishment of the undertaking, no fraud or undue advantage being

shown.” Expanded Metal Fireproofing Co. v. Noel Constr. Co., 87 Ohio St. 428, 440, 101

N.E. 348 (1913).

       {¶15} This court has similarly held: “‘A provision in a construction contract that

change orders be reduced to writing and signed by the parties may be waived. The

requirement will be considered to have been waived by the parties when there is clear

and convincing evidence showing that the alterations were made with the knowledge and

participation of all concerned, no fraud having been shown.’” (Emphasis added.) Wells

Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Smith, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2010-T-0051, 2012-Ohio-1672, ¶ 42,

citing Frantz v. Van Gunten, 36 Ohio App.3d 96, 521 N.E.2d 506, syllabus (3d Dist.1987).

This court explained, “[b]y requiring evidence as to subsequent acts of the ‘opposing’

party, a proper balance is reached between the enforcement of the basic purpose of the

clause and the concern that a party could agree to both the oral waiver and modification,

and then ‘hide’ behind the ‘no oral modification’ clause in order to avoid enforcement.” Id.

at ¶ 46; Foster at 364 (“mere knowledge, and even acquiescence, is not enough for

recovery”). Compare 2A Bruner & O’Connor on Construction Law, Waiver of written

change order requirements, Section 7:250 (“Many construction contracts require that in

                                            10

Case No. 2022-T-0032
order for a contractor to be entitled to compensation for performing extra work, the work

must first be authorized by a written change order. The intent behind these provisions is

to protect the owner from surprise claims for extra work. To this extent, these provisions

fulfill a legitimate and useful purpose.     Nevertheless, these provisions have been

employed to shield an owner from having to pay a contractor for work that was clearly

beyond the scope of the contract. This is an area where the courts often employ equity

in the form of finding that the written authorization requirement was waived by the party

seeking to enforce its terms.”).

       {¶16} DiPaolo Industrial’s managing member, Sergio DiPaolo, testified by

deposition that change orders were approved verbally by either Menard’s project

manager, Brad Wondra, or assistant general manager, Jim Carlson. DiPaolo testified

that generally the terms for the additional work were negotiated with either Wondra or

Carlson and then a written change order would be submitted by DiPaolo Industrial for

signature by general manager, Troy Anderson. However, only one of the eight change

orders was ever signed.

       {¶17} The first change order involved additional grading or clearing an area on the

south side of the construction site for the installation of a gas line. A November 18, 2013

email from Wondra to DiPaolo stated: “Can you get me a price on that grading * * * by

Friday? I need to get this work done so utilities can come in to relocate the gas line toward

the property line.” DiPaolo testified regarding the negotiations with Wondra: “We spoke

about it. He asked me about it, it had to be done, give me a price. I gave him a price.

And then he responded back, sounds good, okay, we’re good to go on that.” A December

9, 2013 email from Wondra to DiPaolo stated: “Jim [Carlson] gave me the go ahead on

                                             11

Case No. 2022-T-0032
the extra work on the south side of the property ($6,000). Go ahead and start mobilizing.”

Carlson, in his deposition, affirmed that he spoke with Anderson about the additional work

and that DiPaolo Industrial was authorized to do the work. DiPaolo Industrial did not

submit a written change order until March 25, 2014, and Anderson did not sign the order

until April 18, 2014.   According to the terms of the Construction Contract, DiPaolo

Industrial should not have been authorized to commence the work until Anderson had

signed the change order.

       {¶18} The second change order involved the removal of a pylon sign. DiPaolo

testified that Wondra verbally approved this change order. Carlson testified that “the cost

[to remove the sign] was approved by Troy Anderson to go ahead with that.” DiPaolo

claimed a change order was submitted but never returned.

       {¶19} On April 10, 2014, Wondra emailed DiPaolo and copied both Carlson and

Anderson: “On December 9th, we approved change order #1 for the regrading over on the

south side of the property. I will submit to Troy to sign. On the AIA change order form

#2, I do not know what this all entails. Why is it going to cost me [an] additional $6,000

to remove[] the other pylon sign. Please advise. Work Order-Excavation [third change

order]- We will not sign. Per the contract plans, you were supposed to remove the utilities

and backfill your trenches properly. Work Order-Asphalt [fourth change order]- We are

not opposed to this as an extra for the asphalt. In the existing parking lot, there is a total

of 7ʺ of asphalt that needs to be milled. However, we will not agree to a change order on

a per day basis. We will only agree on a fixed cost.”

       {¶20} The foregoing evidence is sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact

as to whether Menard waived the contractual provision that additional work had to be

                                             12

Case No. 2022-T-0032
approved by Anderson in writing prior to the commencement of the work. Such was not

the procedure followed by either of the parties in the course of performance of the

contract. It is noted that the contract specifically stated that project managers could not

approve changes in the work. See Foster, 78 Ohio St.3d at 364, 678 N.E.2d 519 (“[i]t is

generally recognized that, in the absence of an express authority, an engineer, architect,

superintendent or inspector in charge of or assigned to public building or construction

work has no power to waive or modify a stipulation requiring a written order for alterations,

even where that person may authorize alterations in writing”). However, the evidence in

the present case is that Wondra would consult with Carlson, an assistant general

manager, before conveying approval to DiPaolo Industrial. Moreover, Carlson would

consult with Anderson regarding the change orders, and Anderson was the Menard

representative with authority to approve change orders. The significant point is that all

levels of Menard’s management were actively aware of and/or participating in the

authorization of additional work contrary to the terms of Article 2. In these circumstances,

summary judgment on the issue of waiver was not appropriate as to any of the purported

change orders to which DiPaolo claims Menard agreed.3

        {¶21} We emphasize that there is evidence from which it could be reasonably

inferred that Anderson was being consulted about change orders and giving his approval

without regard for the contractual procedure.                Giving DiPaolo the benefit of such

inferences, Anderson approved the first two change orders through Carlson without

3. We are aware that, in the final judgment after trial, the contract price was adjusted to incorporate the
cost of some of the additional work performed by DiPaolo Industrial. We are also aware that whether
Menard ever agreed to the terms of the change orders and whether DiPaolo Industrial completed the work
proposed in the change orders are also in dispute. Our ruling here is limited to whether the issue of waiver
could be decided as a matter of law.
                                                    13

Case No. 2022-T-0032
requiring a written AIA change order. Nor does the evidence substantiate the claim that

Menard merely “acquiesce[d]” to DiPaolo’s performance of additional work. In the case

of the first change order, Menard approached DiPaolo and requested “a price” for

additional grading. The price for the second change order was approved by Anderson

and accepted by DiPaolo, although Wondra appears to have been unaware of the

agreement. In almost every case, Menard was active in negotiating the terms and

compensation for the performance of additional work. If Anderson was approving the

additional work without requiring written change orders (at least until DiPaolo requested

payment), a genuine issue of material fact exists on the waiver issue and summary

judgment should have been denied.

       {¶22} DiPaolo Industrial also argues the lower court erred by granting summary

judgment on its unjust enrichment claims on the grounds that “each change work order is

a contract in and of itself.” Assignments of Error and Brief of Appellant, at 20-21. We

disagree. Regardless of whether a change order contains the elements of a separate

contract, the subject of additional work is one that is encompassed by the original

contract.   See Conditions of the Contract / Instructions to Bidders, Change Order

Procedure 5.A (“[t]he change order shall clearly state the original contract amount, revised

contract amount and any extension or reduction in the schedule”).

       {¶23} “Generally, Ohio law does not permit recovery under the theory of unjust

enrichment when an express contract covers the same subject matter.” Bunta v. Superior

VacuPress, L.L.C., __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4363, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 36; Jochum v.

Howard Hanna Co., 11th Dist. Lake No. 2020-L-077, 2020-Ohio-6676, ¶ 45.                “The

doctrine of unjust enrichment is limited when an express contract exists that concerns the

                                            14

Case No. 2022-T-0032
same subject because ‘“the parties have fixed their contractual relationship in an express

contract,”’ and thus, ‘“there is no reason or necessity for the law to supply an implied

contractual relationship between them.’” (Citation omitted.) Bunta at ¶ 39.

       {¶24} To the extent indicated above, the first assignment of error is with merit.

       {¶25} DiPaolo Industrial’s second, third and fifth assignments of error challenge

various aspects of the lower court’s judgment as being contrary to the weight of the

evidence.

       {¶26} “Weight of the evidence concerns ‘the inclination of the greater amount of

credible evidence, offered in a trial, to support one side of the issue rather than the other.

It indicates clearly to the jury that the party having the burden of proof will be entitled to

their verdict, if, on weighing the evidence in their minds, they shall find the greater amount

of credible evidence sustains the issue which is to be established before them. Weight

is not a question of mathematics, but depends on its effect in inducing belief.’” State v.

Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997), quoting Black’s Law

Dictionary 1594 (6th Ed.1990).

       {¶27} “[I]n determining whether the judgment below is manifestly against the

weight of the evidence, every reasonable intendment and every reasonable presumption

must be made in favor of the judgment and the finding of facts. * * * If the evidence is

susceptible of more than one construction, the reviewing court is bound to give it that

interpretation which is consistent with the verdict and judgment, most favorable to

sustaining the verdict and judgment.” Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d

77, 80, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984), fn.3, quoting 5 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d, Appellate Review,

Section 603, at 191-192 (1978); Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-

                                             15

Case No. 2022-T-0032
2179, 972 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 21.

       {¶28} In the second assignment of error, DiPaolo Industrial disputes the finding

that it was in breach of the Construction Contract for defective work and for not completing

its work within the agreed period. Underlying DiPaolo Industrial’s claims is the further

alleged error that the trial court failed to give effect to the addendum submitted by DiPaolo

Industrial with the signed Contract. The Contract itself provided that the Agreement

Period for completing the work was between November 11, 2013, and January 31, 2014,

and that time was of the essence. The addendum provided that “we [the parties] had

both agreed to leave the Asphalt in place until the weather breaks in late February or

early March,” and “[c]rushing of concrete will commence during January, although if the

temperature falls below 20 degrees Fahrenheit the process will stop.” According to

DiPaolo Industrial, “[w]ith the Addendum in effect, there was simply no firm date by which

the crushing part of the operation had to be completed. * * * While Plaintiff may have

alleged that the opening of its store was delayed, * * * Plaintiff’s own witness testified that

the store opened on time and other evidence indicated that, if any undue delay did occur,

it was the fault of Plaintiff’s general contractor [McConnell Excavating] rather than

Defendant. Consequently, Plaintiff had absolutely no right to discontinue payments to

Defendant and Defendant had every right to stop working.” Assignments of Error and

Brief of Appellant, at 23-24.

       {¶29} The evidence is equivocal as to whether the addendum became part of the

parties’ Contract. When the Contract was submitted to DiPaolo Industrial, it had already

been signed by Menard. DiPaolo signed and returned the Contract but included the

unsigned addendum with the Contract.          The signed Contract does not indicate the

                                              16

Case No. 2022-T-0032
existence of any amendments or addendum. Carlson denies that Menard agreed to the

terms of the addendum. DiPaolo contends that the terms of the addendum were agreed

to prior to the signing of the Contract. Given these circumstances, the addendum could

be construed either as a conditional acceptance of the Contract or as a proposed

amendment thereto.      As a conditional acceptance, it could be argued that Menard

implicitly accepted the terms of the addendum by proceeding to have DiPaolo Industrial

commence demolition. As a proposed amendment, the addendum failed to adhere to the

procedures set forth in the Contract for amendment or to receive any recognition by

Menard.

       {¶30} It is generally recognized that, “[i]n accordance with general contract

principles, if the acceptance modifies or alters the terms set forth in the application, then

the acceptance is deemed a rejection and counteroffer, which must be accepted by the

applicant in order to be effective as a contract.” (Citation omitted.) Livi Steel, Inc. v. Bank

One, Youngstown, N.A., 65 Ohio App.3d 581, 588, 584 N.E.2d 1267 (11th Dist.1989);

Mentor Exempted Village School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Lake Cty. Edn. Serv. Ctr. Governing

Bd., 2016-Ohio-7649, 74 N.E.3d 706, ¶ 78 (11th Dist.). Conversely, under the parol

evidence rule, “a party who has entered into a written contract [is prohibited] from

contradicting the terms of the contract with evidence of alleged or actual agreements.”

(Citation omitted.) Williams v. Spitzer Autoworld Canton, L.L.C., 122 Ohio St.3d 546,

2009-Ohio-3554, 913 N.E.2d 410, ¶ 14.           Moreover, it is not entirely certain if the

addendum was understood in the technical sense of “a thing that is added or to be added,”

i.e., additional terms added to the original contract, or as an amendment of the original

contract. Gutierrez-Gordillo v. Tomo Hibachi Restaurant and Lounge, L.L.C., 2018-Ohio-

                                              17

Case No. 2022-T-0032
2941, 118 N.E.3d 301, ¶ 11 (8th Dist.) (“[a]lthough ‘addendum’ and ‘amendment’ are legal

terms of art, the parties did not give any indication that they intended that an ‘addendum’

to the operating agreement would not be the same as an ‘amendment’”).

       {¶31} This issue, however, need not be determined by this Court. The evidence

of record supports the finding that DiPaolo Industrial failed to complete its work under the

Contract before quitting the worksite in early May, and thus substantiates the breach by

DiPaolo Industrial regardless of whether the addendum is given effect.

       {¶32} On the date that work was to be completed under the terms of the Contract,

January 31, Menard sent a letter to DiPaolo Industrial stating the following: “This letter is

to inform DiPaolo Industrial Development of the concerns Menard, Inc. has with the

demolition of the old Wal-Mart building at 2057 Elm Road. * * * You are understaffed on

this demolition project. I understand that we have been shut down for a week due to the

extreme cold weather but there was no ambition to get caught up once the weather broke.

When I was onsite on January 30th, it was 30 degrees out and only 2 people were working

on pulverizing the concrete slabs. No one was working on disassembling the Garden

Center, removing the parking lot light fixtures, or removing underground utilities. Please

forward me an updated schedule and how you are going to get caught back up, to be

finished no later than March 1st.” At trial, DiPaolo testified that he had no issues with the

content of this letter.

       {¶33} On March 12, 2014, Menard sent a “7-day notice” to DiPaolo Industrial

detailing items which have been completed and advising that “[t]hese items must be 100%

completed otherwise Menard, Inc. will be forced to bring in another contractor at your

expense.”

                                             18

Case No. 2022-T-0032
       {¶34} On April 3, 2014, Menard advised DiPaolo Industrial that the general

contractor “will start mobilizing for the new store starting Monday, April 7 th,” and “[y]ou

must have all work completed and your material and equipment out next week.” Corey

Frasier, the general superintendent for McConnell Excavating, testified at trial that

McConnell Excavating began work on site in the first week of April 2014. Frasier also

testified to work completed by McConnell Excavating that was left undone by DiPaolo

Industrial. DiPaolo complained that the presence of McConnell Excavating on site, in

addition to the way in which McConnell Excavating performed demolition work, delayed

and hindered DiPaolo Industrial from completing its own contract work. However, under

the terms of the addendum, at this point DiPaolo had had a full month to complete its

work which should have consisted of removing asphalt and crushing concrete.

       {¶35} DiPaolo testified at trial that DiPaolo Industrial quit the worksite in the first

week of May because he did not believe Menard would pay him anything further and

returned during the next two to three weeks to remove equipment. At the time DiPaolo

Industrial quit the work site, DiPaolo acknowledged that there was work under the

Contract that had not been completed, although the extent of that work was disputed.

       {¶36} Given the foregoing record, we conclude that the finding that DiPaolo

Industrial was in breach is supported by the weight of the evidence regardless of whether

the addendum was in effect. Two months from early March, when according to the

addendum any work that was suspended on account of cold weather should have

recommenced, was a reasonable period of time for DiPaolo Industrial to complete its

work. Whether the new store opened on schedule is not material to the issue of breach,

as the record demonstrates DiPaolo Industrial needed to complete its work so that the

                                             19

Case No. 2022-T-0032
general contractor could begin its work.

       {¶37} The second assignment of error is without merit.

       {¶38} In the third assignment of error, DiPaolo Industrial argues that the finding of

conversion with respect to the fencing was against the weight of the evidence.

       {¶39} According to the terms of the Contract, certain items from the demolition

project, including wrought-iron fencing at issue herein, were reserved by Menard as

salvage. DiPaolo Industrial stored the fencing offsite until a time at which it was agreed

that Menard would collect the fencing and other salvaged material. DiPaolo Industrial

returned the items to the work site, but Menard did not provide enough transportation to

remove it. Therefore, DiPaolo Industrial returned it to storage at 408 Dana Street.

Carlson testified that Menard repeatedly asked for the fencing to be returned and was

willing to pick up the fencing but did not know where it was being stored. Carlson

estimated the value of the fencing at $25,000. DiPaolo testified that he would not return

the fencing unless Menard agreed to pay for the cost of transportation. DiPaolo admitted

that he did not inform Menard of where the fencing was located and that the building

where it is located is no longer under DiPaolo Industrial’s control.

       {¶40} Conversion is defined as “the wrongful exercise of dominion over property

to the exclusion of the rights of the owner, or withholding it from his possession under a

claim inconsistent with his rights.” Joyce v. Gen. Motors Corp., 49 Ohio St.3d 93, 96, 551

N.E.2d 172 (1990).

              Conversion * * * requires nothing more than the defendant
              possessing a plaintiff’s chattel and being unwilling to give it back.
              See Keeton, Prosser & Keeton on Torts (1984), 88 et seq. Sec. 15-
              Conversion. There is no requirement that the personal property be
              wrongfully obtained. Although a demand and refusal to return the
              personal property is ordinarily necessary to prove conversion, acts
                                             20

Case No. 2022-T-0032
              by a defendant which are inconsistent with the right of a plaintiff’s
              ownership are sufficient to satisfy this requirement.

Kiss v. Dick Baker Dodge, 6th Dist. Erie No. E-98-027, 1998 WL 904920, *3; Baltimore &

Ohio RR. Co. v. O’Donnell, 49 Ohio St. 489, 32 N.E. 476 (1892), paragraph two of the

syllabus (“[a]ny wrongful exercise of dominion over chattels in exclusion of the rights of

the owner, or withholding of them from his possession under a claim inconsistent with his

rights, constitutes a conversion”).

       {¶41} We find that the evidence of record supports a finding of conversion. There

was evidence that DiPaolo wrongfully refused to return the fencing to Menard and/or

enable Menard to reclaim it when asked by Menard. Moreover, Carlson, as assistant

general manager of the project, was competent to provide an estimate of the value of the

fencing (of course, not being able to access the fencing, its value could not be properly

appraised). Compare Tokles & Son, Inc. v. Midwestern Indemn. Co., 65 Ohio St.3d 621,

627, 605 N.E.2d 936 (1992) (“[w]e know of no reason for withholding information from a

jury’s consideration or for requiring a corporate officer to qualify as an expert in all cases

before testifying as to the value of corporate property”).

       {¶42} The third assignment of error is without merit.

       {¶43} In the fifth assignment of error, DiPaolo Industrial argues that the judgment

in favor of Menard as to its counterclaim for defamation is against the weight of the

evidence.

       {¶44} At trial, DiPaolo testified that he viewed a news segment on 27 WKBN in

which a spokesperson for Menard was “talking about this lawsuit * * * and that Mr. DiPaolo

had stolen fencing and other items from the property.” After contacting the news station,

it was learned that the video of the segment was no longer available. DiPaolo Industrial
                                             21

Case No. 2022-T-0032
introduced a couple of print articles regarding the lawsuit which included the allegation

that DiPaolo Industrial had unlawfully removed $25,000 in fencing belonging to Menard.

Additionally, DiPaolo testified that Wondra filed a complaint with law enforcement

regarding the fencing and that he was questioned by the police about the fencing.

DiPaolo Industrial contends the foregoing “supports the proposition that Plaintiff was

alleging that Defendant had actually stolen materials.” Assignments of Error and Brief of

Appellant, at 29.

       {¶45} “In Ohio, defamation occurs when a publication contains a false statement

‘made with some degree of fault, reflecting injuriously on a person’s reputation, or

exposing a person to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, shame or disgrace, or affecting a

person adversely in his or her trade, business or profession.’” (Citation omitted.) Am.

Chem. Soc. v. Leadscope, Inc., 133 Ohio St.3d 366, 2012-Ohio-4193, 978 N.E.2d 832, ¶

77. “To establish defamation, the plaintiff must show (1) that a false statement of fact

was made, (2) that the statement was defamatory, (3) that the statement was published,

(4) that the plaintiff suffered injury as a proximate result of the publication, and (5) that the

defendant acted with the requisite degree of fault in publishing the statement.” (Citation

omitted.) Id.

       {¶46} Menard counters, and we agree, that the allegedly defamatory statements

fall under the scope of absolute privilege which provides that “a claim alleging that a

defamatory statement was made in a written pleading does not state a cause of action

where the allegedly defamatory statement bears some reasonable relation to the judicial

proceeding in which it appears.” Surace v. Wuliger, 25 Ohio St.3d 229, 233, 495 N.E.2d

939 (1986). The allegedly defamatory statement published in the news articles related to

                                               22

Case No. 2022-T-0032
the pending litigation and so falls within the scope of the privilege. Am. Chem. Soc. at ¶

86 (“[c]onsidering the article as a whole and the fact that the article contained a true and

accurate summary of the legal proceedings at the time, we hold that the statements in the

article are, as a matter of law, not defamatory”). Whatever statements Wondra may have

made to law enforcement would be similarly protected. Fisher v. Ahmed, 2020-Ohio-

1196, 153 N.E.3d 612, ¶ 40 (9th Dist.) (“[a]s a matter of public policy, an absolute privilege

protects statements that report a possible crime, because a privilege under such

circumstances encourages ‘“the reporting of criminal activity by removing any threat of

reprisal in the form of civil liability”’) (citation omitted).

       {¶47} The fifth assignment of error is without merit.

       {¶48} In the fourth assignment of error, DiPaolo Industrial asserts that the award

of attorney fees is in error as “Plaintiff has provided insufficient proof of these damages

and, further, an award of such would be against Ohio public policy.” Assignments of Error

and Brief of Appellant, at 25.

       {¶49} “Ohio has long adhered to the ‘American rule’ with respect to recovery of

attorney fees: a prevailing party in a civil action may not recover attorney fees as a part

of the costs of litigation.” Wilborn v. Bank One Corp., 121 Ohio St.3d 546, 2009-Ohio-

306, 906 N.E.2d 396, ¶ 7. “However, there are exceptions to this rule.” Id. “Exceptions

to the rule allow fee-shifting and taxing attorney fees as costs (1) if there has been a

finding of bad faith; (2) if a statute expressly provides that the prevailing party may recover

attorney fees; and (3) if the parties’ contract provides for fee-shifting.” (Emphasis added.)

J.B.H. Properties, Inc. v. N.E.S. Corp., 11th Dist. Lake No. 2007-L-024, 2007-Ohio-7116,

¶ 8.

                                                  23

Case No. 2022-T-0032
       {¶50} The parties’ Contract herein provides:

              ARTICLE 5: INDEMNIFICATION

                      [1] CONTRACTOR [DiPaolo Industrial] shall indemnify and
              hold harmless OWNER [Menard], its agents and its employees from
              any and all liability, damages, expenses, claims, demands, actions
              or causes of action, including attorney fees, arising out of the
              performance of the Contract Documents, Agreement and/or Work
              hereunder, whether such liability, damages, expenses, claims,
              demands, actions or causes of action are caused by
              CONTRACTOR, its subcontractors, or lower tiered contractors, or
              their agents or employees, OWNER, its agents and its employees,
              or any persons acting on behalf of OWNER and/or CONTRACTOR.
              [2] In the event of failure by CONTRACTOR to defend OWNER
              against any such claim upon ten (10) days written notification of
              OWNER requesting that CONTRACTOR do so, OWNER shall be
              entitled to directly settle any such claim. [3] CONTRACTOR waives
              any right to dispute the amount of any settlements made by OWNER
              under this provision and acknowledges that OWNER is entitled to
              deduct the full amount of any such settlements from the Contract
              Sum as defined below. [4] If Final Payment, as defined herein, has
              already been made by OWNER to CONTRACTOR, CONTRACTOR
              agrees to reimburse OWNER the full amount of any settlement within
              ten (10) days after receipt of invoice from OWNER.

(Emphasis added.)

       {¶51} The issue is whether Article 5 is a fee shifting provision and, if so, under

what circumstances.

       {¶52} In contract cases in which the parties intend a fee-shift when they are

involved in litigation over contract performance, we typically see the following type of

language: “indemnification from and against claims, damages, losses and expenses,

including but not limited to its actual attorney fees incurred, arising out of or resulting from

performance of the contract or out of the actual or alleged failure of the contractor or

subcontractor to perform any obligations under the contract or subcontract documents.”

       {¶53} By contrast, “[i]ndemnity arises from contract, either express or implied, and
                                              24

Case No. 2022-T-0032
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 (1987). “Indemnity agreements are interpreted in the same manner

as other contracts.” Ferguson v. Boron, 2018-Ohio-69, 105 N.E.3d 424, ¶ 47 (7th Dist.).

“The true nature of an indemnity relationship is determined by the intent of the parties

expressed within the language of the agreement.” Id. “[A]ll the words used [must] be

taken in their ordinary and popular sense,” Glaspell v. Ohio Edison Co., 29 Ohio St.3d 44,

47, 505 N.E.2d 264 (1987), and “[w]hen a [writing] is worded in clear and precise terms;

when its meaning is evident, and tends to no absurd conclusion, there can be no reason

for refusing to admit the meaning which such [writing] naturally presents.” Lawler v. Burt,

7 Ohio St. 340, 350 (1857).

       {¶54} Further, “parties ‘have a fundamental right to contract freely with the

expectation that the terms of the contract will be enforced.’ Nottingdale Homeowners’

Assn., Inc. v. Darby, 33 Ohio St.3d 32, 36, 514 N.E.2d 702 (1987)[.] * * * To that end,

parties to a contract may include contractual terms that abrogate the common law. Paul

Cheatham I.R.A. v. Huntington Natl. Bank, 157 Ohio St.3d 358, 2019-Ohio-3342, 137

N.E.3d 45, ¶ 30. ‘[B]ut the intent to do so must be clearly indicated.’ Id. This principle

applies to contractual indemnification agreements. * * * [T]he ‘nature of an indemnity

relationship is determined by the intent of the parties as expressed by the language used’

in the agreement. Worth[, supra, at] 240 * * *. [A court] cannot ascertain the parties’

intent without looking at the words that they used to express their intent. Kelly v. Med.

Life Ins. Co., 31 Ohio St.3d 130, 132, 509 N.E.2d 411 (1987) (‘The intent of the parties to

a contract is presumed to reside in the language they chose to employ in the agreement’).”

                                            25

Case No. 2022-T-0032
Wildcat Drilling, L.L.C. v. Discovery Oil & Gas, L.L.C., 164 Ohio St.3d 480, 2020-Ohio-

6821, 173 N.E.3d 1156, ¶ 14.

      {¶55} When read as a whole and in context, Article 5 provides for third-party

indemnification only. It is not an indemnification clause for attorney fees incurred in

enforcing the contract between the two contracting parties.        The first sentence is

unambiguously written to require DiPaolo to indemnify and hold Menard harmless from

“liability, damages, expenses, claims, demands, actions or causes of action, including

attorney fees, arising out of the performance of the Contract Documents, Agreement

and/or Work” regardless of who caused the claim to arise, even including Menard. The

first sentence must be read in context with the balance of the article. For instance, the

second sentence describes what Menard may do in the event DiPaolo fails to “defend”

Menard against “any such claim”—the list stated in sentence one—Menard may directly

settle the claim. The third sentence provides that DiPaolo waives the right to contest the

amount of the settlement and that Menard may deduct the amount from the total contract

sum. The fourth sentence allows a claw-back of the settlement amount in the event final

payment has been made to DiPaolo.

      {¶56} Ohio case law does not provide an interpretation of the precise language

drafted by Menard; however, cases in other states do. The critical term in Article 5 is

“defend,” which indicates the clause’s application to third party claims. This term would

have no effect in a direct action between the parties. “Obviously, in a direct action

between the parties, neither party would be interested in tendering its defense or being

defended by the other party.” Canopy Corp. v. Symantec Corp., 395 F.Supp.2d 1103,

1115 (D.Utah 2005).

                                           26

Case No. 2022-T-0032
       {¶57} Further, “[c]onstruing the indemnification clause ‘as pertaining only to third-

party suits affords a fair meaning to all of the language employed by the parties in the

contract and leaves no provision without force and effect.’” Id. at 1116, quoting Oscar

Gruss & Son, Inc. v. Hollander, 337 F.3d 186, 200 (2d Cir.2003) (holding that an

indemnification clause was confined to third-party claims and did not permit an attorney

fee award in a first-party lawsuit); accord Hooper Assocs., Ltd. v. AGS Computers, Inc.,

74 N.Y.2d 487, 548 N.E.2d 903 (1989) (“To extend the indemnification clause to require

defendant to reimburse plaintiff for attorney’s fees in the breach of contract action against

defendant would render these provisions meaningless because the requirement of notice

and assumption of the defense has no logical application to a suit between the parties.”).

       {¶58} Based on the express language of Article 5 and the inapplicability of any

other section of the contract that references attorney fees, there is no need to consider

DiPaolo’s public policy or evidentiary arguments.

       {¶59} The fourth assignment of error is with merit.

       {¶60} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Trumbull County Court of

Common Pleas is affirmed in part and reversed in part. This matter is remanded for

further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs to be taxed between the parties

equally.

JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J., concurs,

MARY JANE TRAPP, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with a Concurring/Dissenting
Opinion.

                       ____________________________________________

                                             27

Case No. 2022-T-0032
MARY JANE TRAPP, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with a Concurring/Dissenting
Opinion.

       {¶61} I concur with the majority’s analysis and disposition regarding DiPaolo’s

second through fifth assignments of error as well as the unjust enrichment portion of

DiPaolo’s first assignment of error. I depart ways with the majority on the breach of

contract portion of DiPaolo’s first assignment of error. Specifically, I disagree with the

majority’s determination that the record on summary judgment creates a genuine issue

of material fact as to whether Menard waived the written change order requirement in the

parties’ contract.

       {¶62} The majority correctly begins its analysis with the Supreme Court of Ohio’s

decision in Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Convention Facilities Auth.,

78 Ohio St.3d 353, 678 N.E.2d 519 (1997), which states:

       {¶63} “It is universally recognized that where a building or construction contract,

public or private, stipulates that additional, altered, or extra work must be ordered in

writing, the stipulation is valid and binding upon the parties, and no recovery can be had

for such work without a written directive therefor in compliance with the terms of the

contract, unless waived by the owner or employer.” Id. at 360-361.

       {¶64} The rationale for this principle is as true today as it was over 125 years ago

when the Supreme Court of Ohio decided Ashley v. Henahan, 56 Ohio St. 559, 47 N.E.

573 (1897):

       {¶65} “The primary purpose of requiring written authorization for alterations in a

building or construction contract is to protect the owner against unjust and exorbitant

                                            28

Case No. 2022-T-0032
claims for compensation for extra work. It is generally regarded as one of the most

effective methods of protection because such clauses limit the source and means of

introducing additional work into the project at hand. It allows the owner to investigate the

validity of a claim when evidence is still available and to consider early on alternative

methods of construction that may prove to be more economically viable. It protects

against runaway projects and is, in the final analysis, a necessary adjunct to fiscal

planning.” Foster Wheeler at 363-364, citing Ashley at 572-573.

       {¶66} In this case, Article 2 of the parties’ contract, entitled “Changes in the Work,”

provides as follows:

       {¶67} “[Menard], without invalidating this contract, may, at any time, order

changes in the work within the general scope of this contract. [DiPaolo] shall not

perform any extra or additional work or changes from the Contract Documents

unless previously authorized in writing by an AIA change order signed by Troy

Anderson, the General Manager Store Planning/Design/Construction. Portions of

change order work are subject to merchandise credit check. [Menard]’s project

managers are not authorized to approve changes in the work.” [Bolding sic.]

       {¶68} Thus, pursuant to Article 2, Troy Anderson was the only person who could

authorize additional work on Menard’s behalf, and his authorization was required to be

set forth in a signed and written AIA change order.

       {¶69} The majority also correctly notes that an owner may waive this type of

contractual provision. See Foster Wheeler at 360 (“unless waived by the owner”). In

those situations, “‘proof of a waiver must either be in writing, or by such clear and

convincing evidence as to leave no reasonable doubt about it.’” Id. at 364, quoting Ashley

                                             29

Case No. 2022-T-0032
at paragraph five of the syllabus. “Mere knowledge, and even acquiescence, is not

enough for recovery.” Id. In addition, “‘“[e]quivocal conduct, or conduct of doubtful import,

is not sufficient.”’” Id., quoting Ashley at 574, quoting O’Keefe v. St. Francis’ Church, 59

Conn. 551, 561, 22 A. 325 (1890).

       {¶70} In this case, there was no written waiver of Article 2. Instead, DiPaolo

contends that Menard waived the written change order procedure because Jim Carlson,

assistant general manager of store planning/construction, verbally approved change

order nos. 2, 5, 6, and 7, and Brad Wondra, project manager, verbally approved change

order nos. 3 and 4.

       {¶71} Critically, the plain language of Article 2 explicitly notified DiPaolo that only

Mr. Anderson was authorized to approve changes in the work on Menard’s behalf and

that Menard’s project managers were not authorized to do so, making any approval from

Mr. Carlson and Mr. Wondra legally ineffective.

       {¶72} DiPaolo also contends that “[a]t every juncture,” Mr. Carlson and Mr.

Wondra informed it “that Troy Anderson was both advised of the proposed change work

orders, had approved such change work orders and that copies of such would be

forthcoming.”

       {¶73} The evidentiary quality material submitted on summary judgment does not

support this contention. Contrary to the majority’s determination, the most that can be

inferred from the record is that Mr. Anderson was copied on some of the email

correspondence among DiPaolo, Mr. Wondra, and Mr. Carlson regarding additional work.

       {¶74} Further, the majority appears to presume that Mr. Anderson was authorized

to waive the written change order requirement. According to the Supreme Court of Ohio,

                                             30

Case No. 2022-T-0032
however, “[i]t is generally recognized that, in the absence of express authority, an

engineer, architect, superintendent or inspector in charge of or assigned to * * *

construction work has no power to waive or modify a stipulation requiring a written order

for alterations, even where that person may authorize alterations in writing.” Foster

Wheeler at 364. Here, the contract identified Mr. Anderson as “the General Manager

Store Planning/Design/Construction,” which indicates he fit within the purview of this rule.

See id.    There was no provision granting authority to Mr. Anderson to waive the

requirement for a written and signed change order. Rather, as stated, Mr. Anderson’s

express authority was limited to authorizing additional work set forth in a signed and

written AIA change order. See id.

       {¶75} For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s granting of summary judgment

to Menard on the issue of change orders was correct as a matter of contractual

interpretation and, thus, as a matter of law. Accordingly, I would overrule DiPaolo’s first

assignment of error in its entirety.

                                            31

Case No. 2022-T-0032