Roofer’s Unworkmanlike Service Maybe Could Have Been Avoided |[OH CT APP]|

During a mobile home owner’s sale of her mother’s home to a self-employed roofer, she mentioned to him that she was having leak problems with her roof. The home owner claims that she told the roofer how the $3,500 to $4,000 roofing quotes she had received were too expensive. According to her, the roofer offered to replace the roof and a door for half the price, and that the two entered into an oral contract to replace the roof for $2,000 and a door on the owner’s home for $200. After the roofer finished the roof, the owner paid him $2,200. Although the roofer brought a new door to the home, he did not install it. He then asked the owner to pay $940 that he claimed was due. The owner refused to pay the additional amount and the roofer sued for breach of contract. The case was originally set for a small claims court. The owner filed a counterclaim for breach of contract due to unworkmanlike quality and sought $5,675 to recover the money she paid the roofer and for the cost of replacing the defective roof. Because the damages exceeded $3,000, a transfer of the case to a municipal court was required.

At trial, the owner presented expert evidence that the roof was installed in an unworkmanlike and defective manner. A roofing expert testified to and providing photos of an uneven and improper sealing of shingles, a failure to install an ice guard as required on a low-pitch roof, and a failure to replace all of the rotted roofing. The expert concluded that the defective work would cause the roof to leak. The roofer conceded that he “maybe” should have installed an ice guard, but he argued that it was not necessary to replace all of the shingle because it “seemed satisfactory” based on his understanding of the contract. After hearing the evidence, the trial court ruled in the owner’s favor. The roofer appealed.

In BRETZ v. NAGY, 2016-Ohio-3008, 2016 WL 2869954 (11th Dist. Ohio Ct. App. May 16, 2016), the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision and found no merit in any of the roofer’s assignments of error. The roofer contended that the trial court erred in finding his installation unworkmanlike and in rejecting the balance he claimed the owner owed. The court disagreed with the roofer’s subjective opinion that he performed in a workmanlike manner. Workmanlike manner, as the court explained, is not determined by the individual expectations of the parties but rather the trade customs within the same community and the same type of work. Based on the expert’s testimony, the appellate court found that the trial court’s decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Regarding the roofer’s balance argument, the appellate court found that it was within the trial court’s discretion to determine the contract price based on the persuasiveness of the evidence presented. Specifically, the appellate court highlighted the owner’s testimony that other roofers’ quotes were too high and, knowing her budget, the roofer agreed to work for half the previous quotes.

Best Practices:

1. Memorialize all construction work in writing–regardless of how small the work might seem – Payment is easier to enforce and issues therefrom are easier to resolve when construction agreements are written down.
2. Workmanlike manner is based on customary standards NOT individual expectations – Generally, the manner of your work is compared to the customs within your trade and community. Regardless of what you think, a court will generally compare your work to those similarly situated to determine if it was done in a workmanlike manner.
3. A contractor cannot waive his or her duty to perform in a workmanlike manner – Unlike many duties assigned to parties contractually, a contractor or builder’s duty to perform in a workmanlike manner always exists. This duty cannot be waived in a contract.

– Christian H. Robertson II

All materials have been prepared for general information purposes only to permit you to learn more about construction law. The information presented is not legal advice, is not to be acted on as such, may not be current and is subject to change without notice.