Stockberger v. Henry

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Stockberger v. Henry, 2011-Ohio-1710.] COURT OF APPEALS KNOX COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ALLEN STOCKBERGER, ET AL, KNOX COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Plaintiffs-Appellees -vsJAMES L. HENRY, KNOX COUNTY ENGINEER : : : : : : : : : JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. Case No. 10CA000018 OPINION Defendant-Appellant CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from the Knox County Court from Knox County Court Common Pleas, Case No. 08OT02-0109 JUDGMENT: Affirmed in part; Reversed in part and Remanded DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: April 7, 2011 APPEARANCES: For Plaintiffs-Appellees For Defendant-Appellant GERHARDT A. GOSNELL II CHARLES R. SAXBE CHESTER, WILLCOX & SAXBE LLP 65 E. State Street, Ste. 1000 Columbus, OH 43215 LUTHER L. LIGGETT, JR. HEATHER LOGAN MELICK LUPER NEIDENTHAL & LOGAN 50 West Broad Street, Ste. 1200 Columbus, OH 43215-3374 THOMAS A. LUEBBERS PECK, SHAFFER & WILLIAMS LLP 201 East Fifth St., Ste. 900 Cincinnati, OH 45202 For Amicus Curiae Ohio Contractors Association PATRICK A. DEVINE Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn 250 West Street Columbus, OH 43215 For Amicus Curiae County Engineers Association FREDERICK A. VIEROW 6879 Haymore Avenue, West Worthington, OH 43085 [Cite as Stockberger v. Henry, 2011-Ohio-1710.] Gwin, P.J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant James L. Henry, in his capacity as the Knox County Engineer (hereinafter referred to as the Engineer), appeals a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Knox County, Ohio, entered in favor of Allen Stockberger, Teresa Bemiller and Roger Reed in their official capacity as the Board of County Commissioners of Knox County (hereafter the Commissioners). Robert Wise, a former County Commissioner, was originally named in the case, but Mr. Reed, his successor, has been substituted. In reviewing the legal issues involved, we have reviewed Amici Curae briefs from the County Engineers Association of Ohio and Ohio Contractors Association in addition to the briefs of the Engineer and the Commissioners. {¶2} The Engineer assigns two errors to the trial court: {¶3} I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO USE AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION STANDARD AS THE COUNTY ENGINEER ENJOYS DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN EXPENDITURE IS FOR A HIGHWAY PURPOSE . {¶4} II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT DISMISSING THIS CASE ON ITS FACE, AS A MATTER OF LAW. {¶5} The Commissioners assign a single error on cross-appeal: {¶6} Cross-Assignment of Error {¶7} I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING PLAINTIFFS -CROSS APPELLANTS REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. {¶8} The issue presented in this case is whether the Knox County Engineer can use funds restricted by the Ohio Constitution for highway purposes to pay his Knox County, Case No. 10CA000018 3 office s share of the cost of Knox County s premium for a risk sharing pool. The trial court found the Engineer could do so; we disagree. The Constitutional and Statutory Basis {¶9} R.C. 2744.08 provides: {¶10} Regardless of whether a political subdivision, under section 2744.08 of the Revised Code, secures a policy or policies of liability insurance, establishes and maintains a self-insurance program, or enters into an agreement for the joint administration of a self-insurance program, the political subdivision may, pursuant to a written agreement and to the extent that it considers necessary, join with other political subdivisions in establishing and maintaining a joint self-insurance pool to provide for the payment of judgments, settlement of claims, expense, loss, and damage that arises, or is claimed to have arisen, from an act or omission of the political subdivision or any of its employees in connection with a governmental or proprietary function and to indemnify or hold harmless the subdivision's employees against such loss or damage. {¶11} Section V (A), Article XII of the Ohio Constitution provides: {¶12} No monies derived from fees, excises, or license taxes relating to registration, operation, or use of vehicles on public highways, or to fuels used for propelling such vehicles, shall be expended for other than the cost of administering such laws, statutory refunds and adjustments provided therein, payment of highways obligations, costs for construction, re-construction, maintenance and repair of the public highways and bridges and other statutory highway purposes, expense of state Knox County, Case No. 10CA000018 4 enforcement of traffic laws, and expenditures authorized for hospitalization of indigent persons injured in motor vehicle accidents on the public highway. {¶13} R.C. 315.12 (A) states: {¶14} [T]wo thirds of the cost of operation of the office of the county engineer, including the salaries of all the employees and the cost of maintenance of such office as provided by the annual appropriate made by the Board of County Commissioners for such purpose, shall be paid out of the county s share of the fund derived from the receipts from motor vehicle licenses, as distributed under Section 4501.04 of the Revised Code, and from the county s share of the fund derived from the motor vehicle fuel tax as distributed under Section 5735.27 of the Revised Code. {¶15} We will refer to the restricted funds as MVGT funds. {¶16} R.C. 5543.01 states: {¶17} (A) Except as provided in division (B) of this section, the county engineer shall have general charge of the following: {¶18} (1) Construction, reconstruction, improvement, maintenance, and repair of all bridges and highways within the engineer's county, under the jurisdiction of the board of county commissioners, except for those county roads the board places on non-maintained status pursuant to section 5541.05 of the Revised Code; {¶19} (2) Construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, or improvement of roads by boards of township trustees under sections 5571.01, 5571.06, 5571.07, 5571.15, 5573.01 to 5573.15, and 5575.02 to 5575.09 of the Revised Code; {¶20} (3) Construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, or improvement of the roads of a road district under section 5573.21 of the Revised Code. Knox County, Case No. 10CA000018 5 {¶21} (B) For any particular project, after notifying the county engineer, the board of township trustees of a township that has adopted a limited home rule government under Chapter 504 of the Revised Code may hire an independent professional engineer to be in charge of those activities listed in division (A)(2) of this section. The county engineer shall review all of the independent professional engineer's plans for improvements and provide the board of township trustees with comments on those plans within ten working days after receiving them. The county engineer shall monitor all plans for improvements in order to maintain compliance with existing construction standards and thoroughfare plans, and coordinate construction timelines within the county. {¶22} (C) The county engineer may not perform any duties in connection with the repair, maintenance, or dragging of roads by boards of township trustees, except that, upon the request of any board of township trustees, the county engineer shall inspect any road designated by it and advise as to the best methods of repairing, maintaining, or dragging that road. Background Facts {¶23} Knox County participates in the County Risk Sharing Authority, hereinafter referred as CORSA. CORSA provides general liability coverage, automobile liability coverage, errors and omissions liability coverage, and property coverage for all Knox County officers. It also provides law enforcement liability coverage which applies only to the sheriff s department and correctional facility. The Knox County Engineer s Office is included in the coverage. Knox County, Case No. 10CA000018 6 {¶24} The county s CORSA premium is determined by an actuary employed by CORSA. It is based upon the exposure and loss experience of the individual counties, but not specifically for each separate department of the county. Loss experience involves claims made against the county in the previous five years, while exposure refers to the risk of each member based upon property values, number of vehicles, and payrolls for offices other than for the sheriff. CORSA encourages counties to seek reimbursement to the general fund from such offices. {¶25} The Commissioners presented evidence they use a proportional mathematical comparison, using only the exposure component of risk, to determine the engineer s share of the CORSA premium. The court heard testimony from a representative of CORSA, who described how the county s premiums, and the Engineer s share, were computed. The CORSA representative testified the Engineer s departmental share did not reflect actual claims paid out on his office s behalf; the actuary computed only the county s overall payout. There are not enough claims per department from which the actuary could establish an accurate estimate or rate for each department. {¶26} The CORSA premium for Knox County for 2007/2008 was $217,510.00, which the Commissioners paid out of the county s general fund. Thereafter, the Commissioners requested reimbursement from including the Engineer s Office and certain other offices which receive a significant amount of funding from sources outside the general fund. {¶27} In June of 2007, the Commissioners sent the Engineer an invoice for $19,789.00, the amount CORSA computed was the Engineer s share of the CORSA Knox County, Case No. 10CA000018 7 premium for 2007-2008. The Engineer refused to authorize payment of the invoice from the MVGT funds. {¶28} In February 2007, one of the trucks in the Engineer s fleet, being operated by an employee of the Engineer s Office, overturned while plowing snow on a county road, causing $13,138.16 damage to the truck. CORSA s agreement with the county provided for a deductable of $2,500.00 per occurrence in the automobile liability and physical damage coverage portion of the program. The Commissioners paid for the repair costs of the truck out of the general fund, and were reimbursed by CORSA for the repair costs minus the deductible. The Commissioners invoiced the Engineer for the $2,500.00 deductible. The Engineer refused payment of this invoice, although he subsequently conceded the deductible was directly related to a highway purpose and could be paid from MVGT funds. {¶29} The County Engineer argues he is constitutionally restricted from using MVGT funds to pay his office s share of the CORSA premium for the county. The Commissioners, on the other hand, argue maintaining CORSA coverage is part of the cost of operating the office, and the Engineer may pay his office s share of the premiums. {¶30} This dispute has been the subject of prior litigation. In Knox County Board of Commissioners v. Knox County Engineer, 109 Ohio St. 3d 353, 2006-Ohio-2576, the Ohio Supreme Court reviewed this same issue involving the years 2002-2003. The Supreme Court found the Ohio Constitution restricted the use of MVGT funds for highway purposes or purposes directly connected thereto. In Knox I, the Supreme Court found there was no evidence in the record showing the payment of CORSA Knox County, Case No. 10CA000018 8 premiums constitutes a highway purpose or is directly connected with construction, maintenance, and repair of highways or the enforcement of traffic laws. The Supreme Court cautioned, however, that if the record contained evidence that the CORSA premiums pertained or directly related to highway purposes, or if the Engineer s budget did not consist wholly of restricted funds, the outcome of the case might not be the same. Id. at paragraph 11. {¶31} In the case at bar, the trial court reviewed testimony regarding whether the CORSA premiums pertained to, or were directly related to, highway purposes, and testimony regarding the Engineer s budget. The trial court found the Commissioners were entitled to a declaratory judgment that the CORSA costs were directly connected to a highway purpose, and MVGT funds can be used to pay a portion of the annual cost of premiums. The court also found MVGT funds may be used to reimburse the county for the deductible on the damage to the truck. However, the trial court refused to issue a mandatory injunction ordering the Engineer to pay the allocated portion of the CORSA insurance costs. II. {¶32} In his second assignment of error, the Engineer argues the court should have dismissed this action for three separate reasons: 1. the matter is res judicata; 2. The Commissioners do not have standing to bring this action; and 3. The Engineer s office does not have the capacity to be sued. {¶33} The Engineer argues the matter is res judicata because the Supreme Court has already reviewed the identical issue in Knox I. We do not agree. Knox I concerned a dispute for the 2002-2003 years while the case at bar deals with 2007- Knox County, Case No. 10CA000018 9 2008. In Knox I, the Supreme Court based its decision solely on the fact there was no evidence in the record that would support the Commissioners argument the payment of the CORSA premiums was directly related to a highway use purpose. The court specifically stated if the record were otherwise, the outcome could be different. {¶34} The doctrine of res judicata involves two concepts: (1) claim preclusion, or estoppel by judgment, and (2) issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, Krahn v. Kenney (1989), 43 Ohio St.3d 103, 107, 538 N.E.2d 1058, citing Whitehead v. General Telephone Co. (1969), 20 Ohio St.2d 108, 254 N.E.2d 10. The collateral estoppel aspect of res judicata precludes the re-litigation, in a second action, of an issue that has been actually and necessarily litigated and determined in a prior action which was based on a different cause of action. Whitehead, supra at 112, 254 N.E.2d 10 (Emphasis sic). However, where a change in the facts has occurred since a decision was rendered, which raises a new material issue or which would have been relevant in the earlier action, the doctrine of res judicata will not bar litigation of that issue in a later action. State ex rel. Westchester v. Bacon (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 42, 399 N.E.2d 81, paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶35} We find this action is not res judicata because the Supreme Court s decision in Knox I was based solely on C. R. 56 governing summary judgments and the absence of evidence in the record but did not address the question of whether MVGT funds may ever be used to pay CORSA premiums. {¶36} The Engineer also argues the Commissioners lack standing and capacity to sue. Standing refers to whether a plaintiff can demonstrate that he has suffered or will suffer a specific injury which is traceable to the defendant s challenged action, and Knox County, Case No. 10CA000018 10 the injury is capable of judicial resolution. Engineering Technicians Assn. v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation (1991), 72 Ohio App.3d 106, 110-111, 593 N.E.2d 472. An entity has standing when it has a personal stake in the outcome of the action. Middletown v. Ferguson (1987), 25 Ohio St.3d 71, 75, 495 N.E.2d 380. The Engineer asserts the Commissioners cannot demonstrate the county has suffered any injury. We find, however, that if the CORSA premiums cannot be paid with MVGT funds, then the money must come out of the county s general fund. This is sufficient to give the Commissioners standing to bring this action. {¶37} Capacity to sue refers to whether the party can sue and be sued. The Engineer argues the Commissioners can sue and be sued pursuant to R.C. 305.12, but the Revised Code contains no provision for suits against the Engineer s Office. He states the Commissioners have a duty to defend his office, and thus here the county is suing itself. The Commissioners reply that this is true as to matters relating to liability to third parties, not internal disputes. A county has capacity to bring an action against a county official. See, e.g., Board of County Commissioners v. Hensley, Montgomery County App. No.19754, 2003-Ohio-5730, where, as here, the Board sought a declaratory judgment regarding the authority of county court judges. {¶38} Declaratory actions are brought under R.C. 2721.03. It provides in pertinent part: ***any person whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a constitutional provision, [or] statute, ***may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the *** constitutional provision, [or] statute, ***and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations under it. Knox County, Case No. 10CA000018 11 {¶39} We conclude the trial court correctly overruled the motion to dismiss. The Commissioners have standing to bring the action; the Engineer has capacity to be sued; and the matter is not res judicata. {¶40} The second assignment of error is overruled. I {¶41} In his first assignment of error, the Engineer argues the trial court erred in not applying an abuse of discretion standard to the Engineer s decision not to pay the insurance premium. The Engineer urges he has the authority to determine whether an expenditure is for highway purposes, and the court should not have entered judgment for the Commissioners without finding he abused his discretion. We do not agree. However, we do agree the trial court reached the wrong decision based upon the record in the case. {¶42} The trial court s amended judgment entry states the Engineer cannot use MVGT funds, rather than shall not use MVGT funds. The entry further authorizes the Engineer to make the payments rather than ordering him to do so. This, coupled with the denial of the Commissioners request for injunction, is the basis of the Engineer s assertion the trial court did not find payment was mandatory, but rather he had discretion to determine whether to pay the premium and deductibles. {¶43} The Engineer argues Boards of County Commissioners are creatures of statute and have only such authority as granted by statute or which can be fairly implied from a statute. Geauga County Board of Commissioners v. Munn Sand & Gravel (1993), 67 Ohio St. 3d 579, 621 N.E. 2d 696. The Engineer asserts that he is an independently elected public official charged with duties related to construction and Knox County, Case No. 10CA000018 12 maintenance of public highways, bridges, and other facilities, pursuant to R.C. 315.08. The engineer argues the county commissioners have no general supervisory authority over his actions if he is acting within his authority. He asserts county commissioners can appropriate funds to be used by the engineer, but they have no authority to require the engineer to expend those funds. {¶44} The Commissioners respond the decision whether expenditure is related to highways purposes sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Ohio Constitution is a legal determination for a court, and not a factual determination left to the Engineer s discretion. The Commissioners argue several courts of appeals have held the decision whether a given action violates the Ohio Constitution presents a question of law. See Andreyko v. Cincinnati, 153 Ohio App. 3d 108, 2003-Ohio-2759, out of the Fourth District; LTV Steel Company v. Industrial Commission (2000), 140 Ohio App. 3d 680, out of the Tenth District, and Fuchs v. Scripts Howard Broadcasting Company, 170 Ohio App. 3d 679, 2006-Ohio-5349, out of the First District. The Commissioners also note in Knox I the Ohio Supreme Court did not accord the engineer any discretion in the decision whether to pay for CORSA premiums. {¶45} We agree the issue is not a matter of discretion for the Engineer s determination but is a mixed question of law and fact for the courts. Because the issue presents a question of law we review the matter de novo. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities Comm. (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 521, 523, 668 N.E.2d 889. {¶46} Our analysis consists of two steps. First, the Commissioners must demonstrate the share of the cost of CORSA allocated to the Engineer s office is Knox County, Case No. 10CA000018 13 accurate. Secondly, there is a separate issue of showing participation in CORSA is either directly related to highway purposes or to the operation of the office. {¶47} The trial court found the formula for allocating health insurance premiums and Workers Compensation is the same formula used to apportion the CORSA premiums among the departments. We agree the Commissioners proved CORSA s computation of the Engineer s share of the premium is accurate. However, for the reasons that follow, we find the Commissioners have not established a nexus between the premium and highway purposes or the operation of the Engineer s office. {¶48} The plain language of the statute gives us no guidelines regarding the factors a court should use to determine whether there is sufficient nexus between the activity or cost and a highway purpose . The Ohio Constitution sets out a list of uses that are acceptable, but does not provide for insurance or risk sharing. It does authorize use of MVGT funds to pay highway obligations . Likewise R.C. 315.12 provides MVGT funds can be used for salaries and operational costs. {¶49} In Knox I the Supreme Court directed our attention to Grandle v. Rhodes (1959) 169 Ohio St. 77, 157 N.E.2d 336: we stated in our syllabus that Section 5a, Article XII of the Constitution of Ohio closely restricts the expenditure of the fees and taxes received in relation to vehicles using the public highways to purposes directly connected with the construction, maintenance and repair of highways and the enforcement of traffic laws * * *. (Emphasis added.) There we held that the restricted funds could not be used to pay fees of a taxpayer's lawyers who successfully sued to block the use of highway funds for a preliminary study regarding the contemplated construction of a parking garage underneath the statehouse. Knox I at paragraph 10. Knox County, Case No. 10CA000018 14 {¶50} The court found the Engineer conceded the deductable for repairs to the damaged truck could be paid with MVGT funds, because it was damaged while being used for a highway purpose. We agree. {¶51} The trial court found the Engineer pays for health insurance premiums, travel to county engineer conferences and seminars, office supplies, copy machines, printers, and utilities out of MVGT funds. The court cited Madden v. Bower (1969), 20 Ohio St. 2d 135, 254 N.E. 2d 357, wherein the Supreme Court found if a county employee receives the benefits of a group health insurance plan procured by a board of county commissioners, the part of the premium which is paid from public funds is a part of the cost of the public service performed by each such employee. The proportionate cost of premiums for county employees' group health insurance plan paid on behalf of employees of a county engineer who are engaged directly in work on county roads is a part of the cost of services rendered by such employees and is payable from the funds established by R.C. 315.10. {¶52} We find Madden is distinguishable from the case at bar. Madden supra dealt with health insurance premiums. By contrast the CORSA risk-sharing pool is not a part of the employee s fringe benefits. CORSA is not insurance. R.C. 2744.08 clearly differentiates between a risk sharing pool and insurance. A joint self-insurance pool is not an insurance company. Its operation does not constitute doing an insurance business and is not subject to the insurance laws of this state. R.C. 2744.081((E)(2). {¶53} In Knox I the court referred to a footnote in Madden, supra, which cautioned that the Engineer s budget will contain some expenditure for the operation of the office are nevertheless not related to the planning, construction, improvement or Knox County, Case No. 10CA000018 15 repair of roads, streets and highways. The court set out a non-exhaustive list of a county engineer s duties which involve operations of the office, but are unrelated to highway purposes. Those duties include supervision of surveying, tax-map drafting and assistance to the board in connection with improving waste disposal works, ditches, sanitary sewers, storm drainage works and sidewalks. Thus, it is not sufficient to demonstrate the expenditures are related to the operations of the Engineer s office. The evidence must show the expenditures are related to the operations of the office which are related to highway purposes, not simply operations of any office. {¶54} The Engineer presented evidence he engages in various activities unrelated to highway purposes. Those activities include: sanitation engineer, storm water engineer pursuant to a contract between the Commissioners and the Soil and Water Conservation District; preparation of a district master plan for sanitation and storm water; administration of community block grants; advising and assisting the county airport and fair; advising incorporated villages in the county; administering local public authority grants; overseeing the inspection of county bike trails. {¶55} The parties Joint Exhibit 10 contains a break down of the definitions and costs of the various coverages CORSA provides for the Engineer s Office. It includes property coverage, auto liability and physical damage, public official liability, and general liability, all showing the Engineer s share of the premium in percentages. It expresses the percentage of the total county property, payroll, and vehicles and shows the percentage attributable to the Engineer s Office. It does not break the figures down to estimate how much of the Engineer s property and personnel actually deal directly related to highway purposes. The CORSA representative testified it was CORSA s Knox County, Case No. 10CA000018 16 position that the entire amount it had computed as the Engineer s share of the premiums was for highway purposes. {¶56} The representative from CORSA acknowledged the premiums were prospective in nature; that is, the coverage the counties purchase is for possible future payouts, not simply reimbursements for past payouts. {¶57} The county s decision to participate in CORSA protects not only the Engineer s office and employees but covers any office and employee of the county. If another department suffers a loss but the Engineer s office does not, the share of the premiums paid by the Engineer in effect provide a benefit to persons and offices not directly related to highway purposes. {¶58} The court found there was no difference between the premiums for health insurance and the cost for CORSA. We do not agree. We find that pursuant to Madden, health insurance is directly related to highway purposes, but the record does not establish sufficient nexus between CORSA and either a highway purpose or a cost of operation. {¶59} In the trial court s findings of fact, filed November 19, 2009, the court found the Engineer s account contains both MVGT funds and non-restricted funds, some coming from federal projects or reimbursements from other county departments. We find that is irrelevant; how much of the comingled fund is MVGT funds are ascertainable and identifiable. The Engineer testified that he did place all the funds he received into a single account but sought reimbursements from the other county departments and from the Commissioners for non MVGT activities. The Knox I opinion stated if the Engineer s budget did not consist wholly of restricted funds, the outcome Knox County, Case No. 10CA000018 17 of the case might be different. This implies the Engineer might be able to utilize funds from other sources to reimburse the county. It does not mean if the Engineer comingles the funds then he can use MVGT funds for non-highway purposes. {¶60} We agree with the trial court the deductible for the repairs to the engineer s vehicle is related to a highway purpose and payable with MVGT funds. {¶61} We find the Commissioners did not present evidence establishing a direct nexus between the invoice for the premiums and highway purposes or operations of the Engineer s Office. We conclude the trial court utilized the proper standard in analyzing the case but nevertheless reached an incorrect result. {¶62} The assignment of error is overruled in part, as to the court s finding the deductible for the damage to the truck is payable from MVGT funds, and sustained in part as to its finding the Engineer can pay his share of the premiums from MVGT funds. Cross Appeal {¶63} Turning to the cross-appeal, the Commissioners argue the court should have issued a mandatory injunction directing the Engineer to reimburse the county for the CORSA premiums. They argue a mandatory injunction is the proper remedy to compel performance of a government official in conjunction with declaratory relief. {¶64} An injunction is an extraordinary remedy appropriate only if the party requesting it establishes two requirements. First, the party must show that a vested right has been abridged, infringed, upon, or eliminated. Secondly, the moving party must also by clear and convincing evidence that immediate and irrefutable harm will result and no adequate remedy at law exists. Knox County, Case No. 10CA000018 18 {¶65} Because we find the Engineer could not constitutionally reimburse the county with MVGT funds, it follows the Commissioners were not entitled to an injunction directing the Engineer to authorize the payments. {¶66} The assignment of error on cross-appeal is overruled. {¶67} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Knox County, Ohio, is affirmed in part, as to the deductible for the damaged truck, and reversed in part, and the cause is remanded to the court for further proceedings in accord with law and consistent with this opinion. By Gwin, P.J., Farmer, J., and Delaney, J., concur _________________________________ HON. W. SCOTT GWIN _________________________________ HON. SHEILA G. FARMER WSG:clw 0309 _________________________________ HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY [Cite as Stockberger v. Henry, 2011-Ohio-1710.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR KNOX COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ALLEN STOCKBERGER, ET AL, KNOX COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Plaintiffs-Appellees -vsJAMES L. HENRY, KNOX COUNTY ENGINEER Defendant-Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : : JUDGMENT ENTRY CASE NO. 10CA000018 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Knox County, Ohio, is affirmed in part, as to the deductible for the damaged truck, and reversed in part, and the cause is remanded to the court for further proceedings in accord with law and consistent with this opinion. Costs to be split between the parties. _________________________________ HON. W. SCOTT GWIN _________________________________ HON. SHEILA G. FARMER _________________________________ HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY [Cite as Stockberger v. Henry, 2011-Ohio-1710.]

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.