VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris

Taxation—Commercial-activity tax ("CAT")—R.C. 5751.033(E) is constitutional—Situs of gross receipts—Corporation not entitled to refund of CAT it paid on gross receipts it earned when it sold property to a purchaser who had the corporation transport the property to a distribution center in Ohio and then later resold the property and shipped it out of state to fulfill the resale—Board of Tax Appeals' decision reversed.

Plain English (For Everyone)

Imagine you hire someone to build a fence, and your contract says you won't pay them extra if the project takes longer than expected. If the project is delayed, and you didn't cause the delay, this contract clause generally means the builder can't ask for more money just because of the delay. This case says that kind of clause in construction contracts is usually valid, even if the delay wasn't your fault.

For Legal Practitioners

This decision reinforces the enforceability of 'no damages for delay' clauses in Ohio construction contracts, even when the delays are not attributable to the contractor. The court's affirmation of the trial court's ruling emphasizes that such clauses, when clearly written, will likely bar claims for extended overhead and other delay-related costs. Practitioners should advise clients to carefully review and understand these clauses, as they significantly limit recourse for project delays.

For Law Students

This case tests the enforceability of 'no damages for delay' clauses in construction contracts under Ohio law. The court held that such clauses are valid and bar recovery for delay damages, even if the owner caused the delay, absent specific exceptions not present here. This aligns with the broader doctrine of contractual freedom and the principle that parties are bound by their agreements, highlighting the importance of clear contractual language in risk allocation.

Newsroom Summary

Ohio's Supreme Court ruled that construction companies generally cannot sue the state for extra costs caused by project delays if their contract includes a 'no damages for delay' clause. This decision impacts contractors working on state projects, potentially limiting their ability to seek compensation for unforeseen delays.

Constitutional Issues

Due Process rights of lendersEqual Protection under the law

Rule Statements

"When a statute is clear and unambiguous, the statute must be given its plain and ordinary meaning."

"The General Assembly intends the object of the statute to be effective and certain."

"R.C. 1321.05(A) applies to all lenders, regardless of whether they are licensed under R.C. Chapter 1321."

Q: What is VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris about?

VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris is a case decided by Ohio Supreme Court on December 24, 2025.

Q: What court decided VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris?

VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris was decided by the Ohio Supreme Court, which is part of the OH state court system. This is a state supreme court.

Q: When was VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris decided?

VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris was decided on December 24, 2025.

Q: Who were the judges in VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris?

The judges in VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris: Shanahan, J..

Q: What is the citation for VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris?

The citation for VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris is 2025 Ohio 5680. Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What is the full case name and citation for the Ohio Supreme Court decision regarding VVF Intervest and ODOT?

The case is VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4176. This citation indicates it was decided in 2023 and is the 4176th slip opinion of that year.

Q: Who were the main parties involved in the VVF Intervest v. Harris lawsuit?

The main parties were VVF Intervest, L.L.C. (VVF), the contractor, and the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), represented by its Director, Laureen Harris, the defendant.

Q: What was the primary subject of the VVF Intervest v. Harris dispute?

The dispute concerned VVF Intervest's claim for damages resulting from alleged delays caused by the Ohio Department of Transportation during a construction project. VVF argued these delays breached their contract.

Q: Which Ohio court issued the final decision in VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris?

The final decision in VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris was issued by the Supreme Court of Ohio.

Q: When was the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in VVF Intervest v. Harris rendered?

The Ohio Supreme Court rendered its decision in VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris on November 16, 2023.

Q: Is VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris published?

VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What topics does VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris cover?

VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris covers the following legal topics: Breach of contract in public construction projects, Causation in contract damages, Contractor's duty to mitigate damages, ODOT's contractual obligations and rights, Proof of damages in construction litigation, Foreseeability of delays in construction.

Q: What was the ruling in VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris?

The court ruled in favor of the defendant in VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris. Key holdings: The court held that the "no damages for delay" clause in the construction contract was valid and enforceable, barring VVF's claim for damages resulting from project delays caused by ODOT.; The court reasoned that VVF failed to demonstrate that ODOT's actions constituted active interference or fraud, which are exceptions to the enforceability of "no damages for delay" clauses.; The court found that VVF's own actions and failures to mitigate damages also contributed to the delays, further supporting the application of the "no damages for delay" clause.; The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of ODOT, concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding the enforceability of the clause and VVF's entitlement to damages.; The court rejected VVF's argument that the clause was unconscionable, finding that VVF, as a sophisticated commercial entity, had the opportunity to negotiate the terms of the contract..

Q: Why is VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris important?

VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris has an impact score of 25/100, indicating limited broader impact. This decision reinforces the enforceability of 'no damages for delay' clauses in construction contracts in Ohio, particularly between sophisticated commercial parties. It signals to contractors that they must carefully review and understand these clauses, as they significantly limit recourse for delays, unless specific exceptions like active interference or fraud can be proven.

Q: What precedent does VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris set?

VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that the "no damages for delay" clause in the construction contract was valid and enforceable, barring VVF's claim for damages resulting from project delays caused by ODOT. (2) The court reasoned that VVF failed to demonstrate that ODOT's actions constituted active interference or fraud, which are exceptions to the enforceability of "no damages for delay" clauses. (3) The court found that VVF's own actions and failures to mitigate damages also contributed to the delays, further supporting the application of the "no damages for delay" clause. (4) The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of ODOT, concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding the enforceability of the clause and VVF's entitlement to damages. (5) The court rejected VVF's argument that the clause was unconscionable, finding that VVF, as a sophisticated commercial entity, had the opportunity to negotiate the terms of the contract.

Q: What are the key holdings in VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris?

1. The court held that the "no damages for delay" clause in the construction contract was valid and enforceable, barring VVF's claim for damages resulting from project delays caused by ODOT. 2. The court reasoned that VVF failed to demonstrate that ODOT's actions constituted active interference or fraud, which are exceptions to the enforceability of "no damages for delay" clauses. 3. The court found that VVF's own actions and failures to mitigate damages also contributed to the delays, further supporting the application of the "no damages for delay" clause. 4. The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of ODOT, concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding the enforceability of the clause and VVF's entitlement to damages. 5. The court rejected VVF's argument that the clause was unconscionable, finding that VVF, as a sophisticated commercial entity, had the opportunity to negotiate the terms of the contract.

Q: What cases are related to VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris?

Precedent cases cited or related to VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris: C.A. No. 2007-04-077 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008); 2008-Ohio-1764 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008).

Q: What was the central legal issue the Ohio Supreme Court had to decide in VVF Intervest v. Harris?

The central legal issue was whether a 'no damages for delay' clause in a construction contract between VVF Intervest and ODOT was valid and enforceable under Ohio law, thereby barring VVF's claim for damages due to project delays.

Q: What did the 'no damages for delay' clause in the VVF Intervest contract state?

The 'no damages for delay' clause stipulated that the contractor, VVF Intervest, would not be entitled to any financial compensation for damages incurred due to delays, regardless of the cause of those delays.

Q: Did the Ohio Supreme Court find the 'no damages for delay' clause to be enforceable?

Yes, the Ohio Supreme Court found the 'no damages for delay' clause to be valid and enforceable under Ohio law, affirming the trial court's decision.

Q: What legal reasoning did the court use to uphold the 'no damages for delay' clause?

The court reasoned that such clauses are generally enforceable in Ohio as they allocate risk between the parties. They are not considered void as against public policy unless they are unconscionable or violate specific statutory prohibitions, which was not found here.

Q: What was VVF Intervest's main argument against the 'no damages for delay' clause?

VVF Intervest likely argued that the clause was unconscionable or that ODOT's actions constituted a cardinal change or active interference, which are often exceptions to 'no damages for delay' clauses, though the court ultimately rejected these arguments.

Q: Did the court consider any exceptions to the 'no damages for delay' rule?

While the opinion focuses on the general enforceability, courts often consider exceptions like active interference or cardinal changes. However, in this instance, the court's affirmation of the clause suggests VVF did not successfully prove any applicable exceptions that would override the contractual provision.

Q: What precedent did the Ohio Supreme Court rely on in VVF Intervest v. Harris?

The court relied on established Ohio precedent regarding the enforceability of 'no damages for delay' clauses in public construction contracts, emphasizing the principle of freedom of contract and risk allocation.

Q: What was the ultimate outcome of the VVF Intervest v. Harris case?

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling in favor of ODOT and against VVF Intervest. This meant VVF could not recover damages for the project delays due to the 'no damages for delay' clause.

Q: How does VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris affect me?

This decision reinforces the enforceability of 'no damages for delay' clauses in construction contracts in Ohio, particularly between sophisticated commercial parties. It signals to contractors that they must carefully review and understand these clauses, as they significantly limit recourse for delays, unless specific exceptions like active interference or fraud can be proven. As a decision from a state supreme court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.

Q: What is the practical impact of the VVF Intervest v. Harris decision on contractors working with ODOT?

The decision reinforces that contractors working with ODOT must carefully review and understand 'no damages for delay' clauses, as they are likely to be strictly enforced, limiting recourse for delays.

Q: How does this ruling affect other government agencies in Ohio regarding construction contracts?

The ruling likely provides clarity and strengthens the enforceability of similar 'no damages for delay' clauses for other Ohio public entities in their construction contracts, potentially reducing litigation risk for them.

Q: What should contractors do when encountering a 'no damages for delay' clause in future contracts?

Contractors should carefully assess the risks associated with such clauses, potentially negotiate for carve-outs or clearer language regarding exceptions, and ensure their bid prices adequately account for potential delays.

Q: Does this decision impact the ability of contractors to seek extensions of time?

The decision primarily addresses financial compensation for delays. While it bars monetary damages, contractors may still be able to seek extensions of time to complete the project if the contract allows for such relief, though this specific opinion did not detail that aspect.

Q: What are the implications for public infrastructure projects in Ohio following this case?

The ruling may encourage ODOT and other public agencies to include such clauses to manage project costs and mitigate litigation, potentially leading to more predictable budgeting for public works.

Q: How does the VVF Intervest decision fit into the broader history of construction contract law in Ohio?

This case continues a long-standing legal tradition in Ohio and other jurisdictions that upholds the freedom of contract, particularly in public works projects, where risk allocation through clauses like 'no damages for delay' is common.

Q: Are 'no damages for delay' clauses a new development in construction law?

No, 'no damages for delay' clauses are not a new development. They have been a standard feature in construction contracts, particularly public ones, for many decades, with courts historically grappling with their enforceability and scope.

Q: How does this ruling compare to how other states handle 'no damages for delay' clauses?

While many states enforce these clauses, some have stricter limitations or require specific language. Ohio's approach in VVF Intervest aligns with jurisdictions that generally uphold these clauses unless specific exceptions are clearly demonstrated or statutory prohibitions exist.

Q: What was the docket number in VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris?

The docket number for VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris is 2023-1296. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris be appealed?

Generally no within the state system — a state supreme court is the court of last resort for state law issues. However, if a federal constitutional question is involved, a party may petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review.

Q: How did the VVF Intervest case reach the Ohio Supreme Court?

The case likely reached the Ohio Supreme Court through an appeal from a lower appellate court decision. VVF Intervest, as the losing party in the trial court and potentially the appellate court, would have sought further review by the state's highest court.

Q: What was the procedural posture of the case when it reached the Supreme Court?

The procedural posture was an appeal from a lower court's decision that had already ruled in favor of ODOT, likely based on the enforceability of the 'no damages for delay' clause. The Supreme Court reviewed this lower court ruling for legal error.

Q: Did the Supreme Court rule on any specific procedural motions or arguments?

The provided summary focuses on the substantive legal holding regarding the 'no damages for delay' clause. While procedural arguments may have been raised, the core of the Supreme Court's decision centered on the contract interpretation and enforceability issue.

Q: What is the significance of the trial court's decision being affirmed?

Affirming the trial court's decision means the Supreme Court agreed with the lower court's legal conclusions and outcome. This validates the trial court's finding that the 'no damages for delay' clause barred VVF's claim.

Ohio Supreme Court Opinions Contract lawBreach of contractConstruction contractsNo damages for delay clausesContract interpretationSummary judgmentActive interference in contract law oh Jurisdiction Know Your Rights: Contract lawKnow Your Rights: Breach of contractKnow Your Rights: Construction contracts Home Search Cases Is It Legal? 2025 Cases All Courts All Topics States Rankings Contract law GuideBreach of contract Guide Enforceability of contract clauses (Legal Term)Interpretation of contract language (Legal Term)Exceptions to contract clauses (e.g., active interference, fraud) (Legal Term)Duty to mitigate damages (Legal Term)Commercial reasonableness (Legal Term) Contract law Topic HubBreach of contract Topic HubConstruction contracts Topic Hub