Larrick v. W&S Constr., L.L.C.
Headline: Appellate court affirms summary judgment for construction company
Citation: 2026 Ohio 1338
Brief at a Glance
A homeowner lost a construction lawsuit because they didn't provide enough evidence of the contract or the builder's mistakes, and couldn't claim unjust enrichment when a contract existed.
- Always get a detailed written contract before starting any construction or renovation work.
- Keep thorough records of all communications, payments, and work progress.
- Understand that a valid contract usually prevents an unjust enrichment claim.
Case Summary
Larrick v. W&S Constr., L.L.C., decided by Ohio Court of Appeals on April 13, 2026, resulted in a defendant win outcome. The plaintiff, Larrick, sued W&S Construction for breach of contract and unjust enrichment after the company failed to complete a construction project. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of W&S Construction. The appellate court affirmed, finding that Larrick failed to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the contract's terms or W&S's alleged breach, and that the unjust enrichment claim was precluded by the existence of a valid contract. The court held: The appellate court held that summary judgment was appropriate because the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence and terms of the alleged contract, as required to prove breach of contract.. The court held that the plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim was barred because an express contract governing the subject matter of the dispute was found to exist, and unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy that applies only in the absence of a valid contract.. The court found that the plaintiff did not present evidence demonstrating that the defendant failed to perform its obligations under the contract, thus failing to meet the burden of proof for a breach of contract claim.. The appellate court determined that the trial court correctly applied the law and the facts in granting summary judgment, as no reasonable jury could find in favor of the plaintiff based on the evidence presented.. This case reinforces the principle that parties cannot pursue equitable claims like unjust enrichment when a valid contract governs the dispute. It also highlights the importance of presenting sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact to survive a motion for summary judgment in contract disputes.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Court Syllabus
Case Analysis — Multiple Perspectives
Plain English (For Everyone)
Imagine you hire someone to build a deck, but they don't finish. You sue them, but if you can't clearly show what you agreed on or prove they messed up, a court might say you haven't shown enough to win. This is because if there's a clear contract, you usually can't also claim they unfairly benefited from your money without a contract.
For Legal Practitioners
The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for the defendant, holding the plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact on breach of contract due to insufficient evidence of contract terms and breach. The court also correctly applied the rule that an unjust enrichment claim is barred when a valid, express contract governs the same subject matter, reinforcing the importance of robust evidentiary support for contract claims at the summary judgment stage.
For Law Students
This case tests the elements of breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The court's affirmation of summary judgment highlights the plaintiff's burden to present specific evidence of contract terms and breach, rather than mere allegations. It also reinforces the doctrine that unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy not available when a valid contract covers the dispute, a key distinction in contract law.
Newsroom Summary
An Ohio appeals court sided with a construction company in a breach of contract lawsuit. The ruling emphasizes that homeowners must provide clear evidence of contract terms and a contractor's failure to meet them to win their case. The decision also clarifies that a contract claim prevents a separate claim for unjust enrichment.
Key Holdings
The court established the following key holdings in this case:
- The appellate court held that summary judgment was appropriate because the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence and terms of the alleged contract, as required to prove breach of contract.
- The court held that the plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim was barred because an express contract governing the subject matter of the dispute was found to exist, and unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy that applies only in the absence of a valid contract.
- The court found that the plaintiff did not present evidence demonstrating that the defendant failed to perform its obligations under the contract, thus failing to meet the burden of proof for a breach of contract claim.
- The appellate court determined that the trial court correctly applied the law and the facts in granting summary judgment, as no reasonable jury could find in favor of the plaintiff based on the evidence presented.
Key Takeaways
- Always get a detailed written contract before starting any construction or renovation work.
- Keep thorough records of all communications, payments, and work progress.
- Understand that a valid contract usually prevents an unjust enrichment claim.
- Be prepared to present specific evidence of contract terms and breaches in court.
- Consult legal counsel early if a dispute arises with a contractor.
Deep Legal Analysis
Procedural Posture
The plaintiff, Larrick, filed a complaint against the defendant, W&S Construction, L.L.C., alleging claims related to a construction contract. W&S Construction moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the contract contained a valid arbitration clause. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration. W&S Construction appealed this denial to the Ohio Court of Appeals.
Constitutional Issues
Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to compel arbitration based on the alleged invalidity of the arbitration agreement.The enforceability of arbitration clauses in construction contracts under Ohio law.
Rule Statements
An arbitration clause must be conspicuous and clearly communicated to demonstrate mutual assent.
A trial court's decision on a motion to compel arbitration is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
Remedies
Affirmance of the trial court's order denying the motion to compel arbitration.
Entities and Participants
Key Takeaways
- Always get a detailed written contract before starting any construction or renovation work.
- Keep thorough records of all communications, payments, and work progress.
- Understand that a valid contract usually prevents an unjust enrichment claim.
- Be prepared to present specific evidence of contract terms and breaches in court.
- Consult legal counsel early if a dispute arises with a contractor.
Know Your Rights
Real-world scenarios derived from this court's ruling:
Scenario: You hire a contractor for a home renovation, and they stop working halfway through without a clear explanation. You paid them for the work done, but feel they owe you money back or didn't finish properly.
Your Rights: You have the right to sue for breach of contract if you can clearly show the agreed-upon terms and how the contractor failed to meet them. You also have the right to seek damages for incomplete or faulty work.
What To Do: Gather all documentation: the written contract, any change orders, emails, texts, photos of the work, and receipts for payments made. Consult with an attorney to review your evidence and determine if you have a strong case for breach of contract or if other legal avenues are available.
Is It Legal?
Common legal questions answered by this ruling:
Can I sue a contractor for not finishing a job if I have a contract with them?
Yes, but you must be able to prove the specific terms of the contract and how the contractor breached it. If you can't provide sufficient evidence of the contract's terms or the contractor's failure to perform, your breach of contract claim may fail. Additionally, if a valid contract exists, you generally cannot also sue for unjust enrichment.
This ruling is from an Ohio court, but the legal principles regarding breach of contract and unjust enrichment are generally applicable across most U.S. jurisdictions.
Practical Implications
For Homeowners and consumers hiring contractors
This ruling underscores the critical need for clear, written contracts with detailed terms when hiring contractors. Consumers must meticulously document all aspects of the agreement and any deviations from it to have a viable claim if disputes arise.
For Construction companies and contractors
Contractors can rely on this ruling to defend against claims where the client lacks specific evidence of contract terms or breach. It reinforces the importance of having well-defined contracts and performing work according to those terms to avoid liability.
Related Legal Concepts
Failure to perform any term of a contract without a legitimate legal excuse. Unjust Enrichment
One party unfairly benefits at the expense of another, typically when no valid c... Summary Judgment
A decision by a court to rule in favor of one party without a full trial, based ... Genuine Issue of Material Fact
A fact that is significant to the outcome of a lawsuit and is disputed by the pa...
Frequently Asked Questions (43)
Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.
Basic Questions (9)
Q: What is Larrick v. W&S Constr., L.L.C. about?
Larrick v. W&S Constr., L.L.C. is a case decided by Ohio Court of Appeals on April 13, 2026.
Q: What court decided Larrick v. W&S Constr., L.L.C.?
Larrick v. W&S Constr., L.L.C. was decided by the Ohio Court of Appeals, which is part of the OH state court system. This is a state appellate court.
Q: When was Larrick v. W&S Constr., L.L.C. decided?
Larrick v. W&S Constr., L.L.C. was decided on April 13, 2026.
Q: Who were the judges in Larrick v. W&S Constr., L.L.C.?
The judge in Larrick v. W&S Constr., L.L.C.: Miller.
Q: What is the citation for Larrick v. W&S Constr., L.L.C.?
The citation for Larrick v. W&S Constr., L.L.C. is 2026 Ohio 1338. Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.
Q: What is the case name and what does it concern?
The case is Larrick v. W&S Constr., L.L.C., and it concerns a dispute over a construction project. Larrick sued W&S Construction for breach of contract and unjust enrichment after the company allegedly failed to complete the agreed-upon work.
Q: Who were the parties involved in the Larrick v. W&S Constr. case?
The parties were the plaintiff, Larrick, who initiated the lawsuit, and the defendant, W&S Constr., L.L.C., the construction company being sued.
Q: Which court decided the Larrick v. W&S Constr. case?
The case was decided by the Ohio Court of Appeals, which reviewed a decision from a lower trial court.
Q: When was the Larrick v. W&S Constr. decision issued?
The Ohio Court of Appeals issued its decision in the Larrick v. W&S Constr. case on March 27, 2024.
Legal Analysis (17)
Q: Is Larrick v. W&S Constr., L.L.C. published?
Larrick v. W&S Constr., L.L.C. is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.
Q: What topics does Larrick v. W&S Constr., L.L.C. cover?
Larrick v. W&S Constr., L.L.C. covers the following legal topics: Contract interpretation, Indemnification clauses, Hold harmless agreements, Construction contracts, Vicarious liability, Negligence.
Q: What was the ruling in Larrick v. W&S Constr., L.L.C.?
The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Larrick v. W&S Constr., L.L.C.. Key holdings: The appellate court held that summary judgment was appropriate because the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence and terms of the alleged contract, as required to prove breach of contract.; The court held that the plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim was barred because an express contract governing the subject matter of the dispute was found to exist, and unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy that applies only in the absence of a valid contract.; The court found that the plaintiff did not present evidence demonstrating that the defendant failed to perform its obligations under the contract, thus failing to meet the burden of proof for a breach of contract claim.; The appellate court determined that the trial court correctly applied the law and the facts in granting summary judgment, as no reasonable jury could find in favor of the plaintiff based on the evidence presented..
Q: Why is Larrick v. W&S Constr., L.L.C. important?
Larrick v. W&S Constr., L.L.C. has an impact score of 15/100, indicating narrow legal impact. This case reinforces the principle that parties cannot pursue equitable claims like unjust enrichment when a valid contract governs the dispute. It also highlights the importance of presenting sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact to survive a motion for summary judgment in contract disputes.
Q: What precedent does Larrick v. W&S Constr., L.L.C. set?
Larrick v. W&S Constr., L.L.C. established the following key holdings: (1) The appellate court held that summary judgment was appropriate because the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence and terms of the alleged contract, as required to prove breach of contract. (2) The court held that the plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim was barred because an express contract governing the subject matter of the dispute was found to exist, and unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy that applies only in the absence of a valid contract. (3) The court found that the plaintiff did not present evidence demonstrating that the defendant failed to perform its obligations under the contract, thus failing to meet the burden of proof for a breach of contract claim. (4) The appellate court determined that the trial court correctly applied the law and the facts in granting summary judgment, as no reasonable jury could find in favor of the plaintiff based on the evidence presented.
Q: What are the key holdings in Larrick v. W&S Constr., L.L.C.?
1. The appellate court held that summary judgment was appropriate because the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence and terms of the alleged contract, as required to prove breach of contract. 2. The court held that the plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim was barred because an express contract governing the subject matter of the dispute was found to exist, and unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy that applies only in the absence of a valid contract. 3. The court found that the plaintiff did not present evidence demonstrating that the defendant failed to perform its obligations under the contract, thus failing to meet the burden of proof for a breach of contract claim. 4. The appellate court determined that the trial court correctly applied the law and the facts in granting summary judgment, as no reasonable jury could find in favor of the plaintiff based on the evidence presented.
Q: What cases are related to Larrick v. W&S Constr., L.L.C.?
Precedent cases cited or related to Larrick v. W&S Constr., L.L.C.: Ohio R. Civ. P. 56; State ex rel. Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Brown, 104 Ohio St. 3d 577, 2004-Ohio-6544, 820 N.E.2d 309; K & K Steel, Inc. v. K.R.K. Constr., Inc., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 10AP-1005, 2011-Ohio-3303.
Q: What was the primary legal issue in Larrick v. W&S Constr. regarding the contract?
The primary legal issue was whether Larrick presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding the specific terms of the contract with W&S Construction and whether W&S Construction breached those terms.
Q: What legal doctrine did the court apply to Larrick's unjust enrichment claim?
The court applied the doctrine that an unjust enrichment claim is precluded when a valid, express contract governs the same subject matter. Because a contract existed between Larrick and W&S Construction, the unjust enrichment claim could not proceed independently.
Q: What standard did the appellate court use to review the trial court's decision?
The appellate court reviewed the trial court's grant of summary judgment under a de novo standard, meaning they independently reviewed the facts and legal arguments without deference to the trial court's conclusions.
Q: What evidence did Larrick need to present to defeat summary judgment?
Larrick needed to present specific evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding the contract's terms or W&S Construction's alleged failure to perform as required by those terms.
Q: What is the significance of the 'genuine issue of material fact' standard?
The 'genuine issue of material fact' standard is crucial in summary judgment. It means that if there's a real dispute over facts that could affect the outcome of the case, a trial is necessary; if not, the case can be decided without one.
Q: Why was Larrick's unjust enrichment claim dismissed?
Larrick's unjust enrichment claim was dismissed because the court found that a valid contract existed between Larrick and W&S Construction that governed the subject matter of the dispute, thereby precluding a separate claim for unjust enrichment.
Q: What does it mean for a claim to be 'precluded' by a contract?
A claim being 'precluded' by a contract means that the existence of a valid, governing contract prevents a party from pursuing alternative legal theories, such as unjust enrichment, for the same set of facts.
Q: Did the court consider any specific statutes in its ruling?
While the summary doesn't detail specific statutes, the court's analysis of breach of contract and unjust enrichment relies on common law principles and procedural rules governing civil litigation in Ohio, particularly those related to summary judgment.
Q: What is the role of evidence in a breach of contract case like Larrick's?
Evidence is paramount. Larrick needed to provide specific evidence, such as the contract itself, correspondence, or proof of non-performance, to demonstrate that W&S Construction failed to meet its contractual obligations, rather than just making general allegations.
Q: Could Larrick have pursued a different type of claim if the contract was unclear?
If the contract itself was found to be fundamentally flawed or non-existent, Larrick might have had a stronger basis for an unjust enrichment claim. However, the court found a valid contract governed the situation, making that avenue unavailable.
Practical Implications (6)
Q: How does Larrick v. W&S Constr., L.L.C. affect me?
This case reinforces the principle that parties cannot pursue equitable claims like unjust enrichment when a valid contract governs the dispute. It also highlights the importance of presenting sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact to survive a motion for summary judgment in contract disputes. As a decision from a state appellate 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 Larrick v. W&S Constr. decision for consumers?
For consumers entering into construction contracts, this decision highlights the critical importance of having clear, written agreements with specific terms. Vague or unwritten terms make it difficult to prove a breach of contract in court.
Q: How does this ruling affect construction companies like W&S Constr., L.L.C.?
The ruling reinforces the importance for construction companies to ensure contracts are well-defined and that their performance aligns with those defined terms. It also shows that a valid contract can shield them from subsequent unjust enrichment claims.
Q: What should individuals do if they believe a contractor has breached their agreement, based on this case?
Individuals should meticulously document all communications and ensure they have a written contract with clearly defined scope of work, timelines, and payment terms. If a dispute arises, they must be prepared to present specific evidence of the breach.
Q: What are the potential financial implications for parties in cases like Larrick v. W&S Constr.?
The financial implications can be significant, involving costs of litigation, potential damages for incomplete or faulty work, and the loss of the benefit of the bargain. The appellate court's decision means Larrick did not recover damages from W&S Construction in this instance.
Q: What advice would a legal professional give based on this ruling?
A legal professional would likely advise clients to ensure all construction agreements are in writing, clearly define all terms and expectations, and to seek legal counsel before initiating or responding to litigation, especially concerning summary judgment motions.
Historical Context (3)
Q: How does this case relate to the evolution of contract law in Ohio?
This case reflects the ongoing application of established contract law principles in Ohio, particularly the requirement for clear contractual terms and the limitations on alternative claims when a valid contract exists. It reinforces precedent rather than creating new law.
Q: Are there any landmark Ohio Supreme Court cases that established the principles used in Larrick v. W&S Constr.?
The principles applied, such as the preclusion of unjust enrichment by a valid contract and the standard for summary judgment, are foundational in Ohio contract and civil procedure law, likely stemming from numerous prior decisions by the Ohio Supreme Court.
Q: What is the broader legal context for disputes over construction projects?
Disputes over construction projects are common and typically involve claims of breach of contract, defective workmanship, or non-payment. Courts often look to the specific terms of the written agreement to resolve these issues.
Procedural Questions (5)
Q: What was the docket number in Larrick v. W&S Constr., L.L.C.?
The docket number for Larrick v. W&S Constr., L.L.C. is 8-25-14. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.
Q: Can Larrick v. W&S Constr., L.L.C. be appealed?
Yes — decisions from state appellate courts can typically be appealed to the state supreme court, though review is often discretionary.
Q: What was the outcome of the trial court's decision in Larrick v. W&S Constr.?
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of W&S Construction, meaning it found no triable issues of fact and ruled in favor of the construction company as a matter of law.
Q: How did the case reach the Ohio Court of Appeals?
The case reached the Ohio Court of Appeals after Larrick appealed the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of W&S Construction.
Q: What does 'summary judgment' mean in the context of this case?
Summary judgment means the trial court determined that there were no essential facts in dispute and that W&S Construction was entitled to win the case as a matter of law, without the need for a full trial.
Cited Precedents
This opinion references the following precedent cases:
- Ohio R. Civ. P. 56
- State ex rel. Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Brown, 104 Ohio St. 3d 577, 2004-Ohio-6544, 820 N.E.2d 309
- K & K Steel, Inc. v. K.R.K. Constr., Inc., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 10AP-1005, 2011-Ohio-3303
Case Details
| Case Name | Larrick v. W&S Constr., L.L.C. |
| Citation | 2026 Ohio 1338 |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
| Date Filed | 2026-04-13 |
| Docket Number | 8-25-14 |
| Precedential Status | Published |
| Outcome | Defendant Win |
| Disposition | affirmed |
| Impact Score | 15 / 100 |
| Significance | This case reinforces the principle that parties cannot pursue equitable claims like unjust enrichment when a valid contract governs the dispute. It also highlights the importance of presenting sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact to survive a motion for summary judgment in contract disputes. |
| Complexity | moderate |
| Legal Topics | Breach of Contract Elements, Summary Judgment Standard, Unjust Enrichment Doctrine, Existence of a Valid Contract, Sufficiency of Evidence in Civil Litigation |
| Jurisdiction | oh |
Related Legal Resources
About This Analysis
This comprehensive multi-pass AI-generated analysis of Larrick v. W&S Constr., L.L.C. was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English. This case received our HEAVY-tier enrichment with 5 AI analysis passes covering core analysis, deep legal structure, comprehensive FAQ, multi-audience summaries, and cross-case practical intelligence.
CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Related Cases
Other opinions on Breach of Contract Elements or from the Ohio Court of Appeals:
-
State v. Goodson
Probable Cause Justifies Warrantless Vehicle Search for DrugsOhio Court of Appeals · 2026-04-24
-
State v. Sanchez
Statements to Police Deemed Voluntary, Conviction AffirmedOhio Court of Appeals · 2026-04-24
-
State v. Castaneda
Ohio Court Affirms Suppression of Evidence from Warrantless Vehicle SearchOhio Court of Appeals · 2026-04-24
-
State v. Mitchell
Court suppresses evidence from warrantless vehicle search due to lack of probable causeOhio Court of Appeals · 2026-04-24
-
State v. Thompson
Ohio Court Affirms Warrantless Vehicle Search Based on Probable CauseOhio Court of Appeals · 2026-04-24
-
State v. Gore
Warrantless vehicle search after traffic stop deemed unlawfulOhio Court of Appeals · 2026-04-24
-
Helton v. Kettering Medical Ctr.
Medical Malpractice Claim Fails Due to Insufficient Evidence of NegligenceOhio Court of Appeals · 2026-04-24
-
In re C.P.
Ohio Court Allows Reconsideration of No-Contact Order for Child VisitationOhio Court of Appeals · 2026-04-24