The Eleventh District Court of Appeals of Ohio has affirmed a lower court’s ruling that Buckeye North Coatings, LLC (d.b.a. Rhino Shield) materially breached its contract with homeowner Shaun G. Reeves, leading to significant water intrusion into his custom-built geodesic home. The appellate court found that the coating company failed to adhere to crucial preparation steps outlined in their own agreement, a failure that was fatal to the job’s success.
Buckeye North Coatings had sued Reeves for non-payment after applying the expensive exterior coating, resulting in a mechanic’s lien on Reeves’s property. Reeves counter-sued for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, and violations of the Consumer Sales Practices Act. The trial court sided with Reeves, concluding that the failures in preparation relieved him of his duty to pay the full contract price, though damages were limited to the down payment Reeves had already made ($1,783).
Buckeye North Coatings appealed, raising six assignments of error, all of which were ultimately rejected by the appellate court.
Failure to Prepare Led to Contract Breach
The core of the dispute centered on the preparation phase for the Rhino Shield application. The contract explicitly listed five preparation steps, including inspecting the surface, pressure-washing, caulking/sealing, and masking.
Reeves testified that several of these steps were missed or poorly executed. Critically, he noted that it had rained shortly before the crew arrived, and they proceeded to apply caulk while the structure was still wet. Reeves’s contractor/helper, Scott McLeod, who had experience building over 450 similar dome homes, corroborated this, stating the caulk was “mushy” and still wet the next day. McLeod testified that applying coating over wet caulk is improper.
The appellate court reviewed the breach of contract claim by examining whether the trial court applied the law correctly. The trial court found that Buckeye North Coatings failed to perform duties listed under the “PREPARATION” section of the contract, and the company itself didn’t dispute these failures.
“Buckeye North Coatings’ failure to comply with its own contract in preparation for application of the product assured that the product would fail to perform as expected or intended,” the appellate court noted, upholding the trial court’s finding that the missed steps were so material they excused Reeves from payment. This addressed Buckeye North Coatings’ first two assignments of error—that they hadn’t materially breached and that the court should have ruled in their favor.
Parol Evidence Issue Ruled Harmless
Buckeye North Coatings also argued that the trial court wrongly allowed “parol evidence”—testimony and screenshots from the Rhino Shield website—to suggest the product guaranteed a waterproof result. The company claimed this evidence contradicted the written contract, which also contained clauses limiting warranty coverage for issues like pre-existing conditions or leaks around windows.
The appellate court agreed that, technically, admitting this evidence might have violated the parol evidence rule, which generally prevents using outside evidence to contradict a final written agreement unless the contract is ambiguous. However, the court determined that even if the evidence was improperly admitted, the error was “harmless.”
The trial court’s decision wasn’t based on whether the product was waterproof, but rather on the undisputed failure to properly caulk and seal the joints as required by the preparation section of the contract. Since the evidence showed the caulk was applied improperly, creating gaps for water intrusion, the court would have reached the same conclusion regardless of what the website claimed about waterproofing.
Witness Qualifications Upheld
The appeal also challenged the qualifications of the witnesses who testified against the coating company.
Buckeye North Coatings argued that Mr. McLeod and Mr. Reeves offered improper expert testimony regarding caulk application. The appellate court disagreed regarding McLeod, noting his extensive experience as a contractor qualified him to speak on industry standards for caulk application based on his direct observations at the site.
As for Reeves, the court found his testimony was mostly that of a fact witness describing what he saw. When he did offer opinions based on his 25 years as a wholesale distributor and architectural consultant dealing with caulking products, the trial court permitted it, finding he possessed the necessary “unique knowledge” to qualify outside of strict Evid.R. 702 expert standards. The court found no abuse of discretion in allowing their testimony.
Spoliation and Hearsay Claims Rejected
The company’s claim that the trial court erred by allowing evidence despite the “spoliation” (destruction or alteration) of evidence by Reeves was also dismissed. The court reasoned that Buckeye North Coatings had the opportunity to present its own evidence regarding the application conditions but failed to call any witnesses to rebut Reeves’s claims. Therefore, the premise for sanctioning Reeves by excluding testimony was not met.
Finally, the claim of inadmissible hearsay was rejected. Buckeye North Coatings alleged Reeves improperly testified about what the work crew said regarding missing equipment like a lift and backer rods. The record showed the trial court explicitly sustained the objection to the work crew’s *response* to Reeves’s questions, meaning the inadmissible hearsay was struck. Reeves was only permitted to testify about what *he* said or what he observed.
In conclusion, the appellate court found no merit in any of Buckeye North Coatings’ six assignments of error and affirmed the judgment of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas in full.