Background
Terry and Gina Bessenbacher contracted with C&J Roofing Company, Inc. to install a new roof on their residence and new siding on both their residence and detached garage in Hamilton, Ohio. The work was performed in the summer of 2022 by Roofing’s employees and a subcontractor. The Bessenbachers later alleged the roof leaked, the siding had holes and defects, and the electrical system was damaged during the work.
Both sides moved for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. The trial court denied the Bessenbachers’ motion and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding the Bessenbachers failed to present admissible evidence linking the alleged damages to the defendants’ work. The Bessenbachers appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Twelfth District reversed in part, holding that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on the breach of contract claim against C&J Roofing. The court found that the Bessenbachers’ affidavits, photographs, repair estimates, and deposition testimony created factual disputes about whether Roofing performed the work in an unworkmanlike manner with respect to the roofing, siding, and electrical work. However, the court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the individual defendants Joey Clark and Kevin Clark, finding insufficient evidence to pierce the corporate form.
The court noted that the record was underdeveloped because the depositions had focused primarily on the Bessenbachers’ claims against a separate defendant (Enerbank USA), leaving the breach of contract issues largely unexplored. Both sides had supplemented the record with affidavits, creating competing narratives that the court found appropriate for resolution at trial rather than on summary judgment.
Key Takeaways
- In construction breach-of-contract cases, homeowner affidavits describing defective workmanship, combined with photographs and repair estimates, can create genuine issues of material fact sufficient to survive summary judgment.
- Summary judgment is generally inappropriate where the record is underdeveloped and competing affidavits create factual disputes about the quality of work performed.
- Claims against individual corporate officers require evidence sufficient to pierce the corporate veil; general allegations of control are insufficient.
Why It Matters
This case reinforces basic but important summary judgment principles in the construction litigation context. Ohio practitioners should note that even a relatively thin evidentiary record can defeat summary judgment when competing affidavits and circumstantial evidence raise genuine factual disputes about workmanship quality. The decision also serves as a reminder that discovery directed at the wrong issues can leave a record inadequate for dispositive motions, pushing the case to trial.