Cincinnati Ins. v. Universal Contracting
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Cincinnati Ins. v. Universal Contracting, 2004-Ohio-7128.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, : APPEAL NO. C-040006 TRIAL NO. A-0104654 : D E C I S I O N. Plaintiff-Appellee, : vs. : PRESERVING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, INC., and MARGO AUG, : : : Defendants, : and : UNIVERSAL CONTRACTING CORPORATION, : Defendant-Appellant. Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: December 30, 2004 Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis, LLP, Thomas S. Shore, Jr., John F. McLaughlin, and Lynne M. Longtin, for Plaintiff-Appellee, Keating, Muething & Klekamp, PLL, Joseph L. Trauth, Jr., E. Todd Wilkowski, and Jason M. Cohen, for Defendant-Appellant. We have sua sponte removed this cause from the accelerated calendar. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS Per Curiam. {¶1} Defendant-appellant Universal Contracting Corporation ( Universal ) appeals from the trial court s entry of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee The Cincinnati Insurance Company ( CIC ) on its petition for declaratory judgment. CIC had sought a declaration of its rights and obligations under a Directors and Officers Liability Policy issued to Preserving Affordable Housing, Inc. ( PAH ), for alleged misrepresentations made by Margo Aug, a PAH officer, to Universal, the general contractor for renovations to PAH s housing properties. In 2000, following arbitration on a breach-of-contract claim, Universal and its subcontractors had been awarded over $4 million in damages against PAH. On December 16, 2003, the trial court declared the rights of the parties and held that CIC was entitled to summary judgment, as it had not been timely put on notice of Universal s claims against PAH and Aug, and as the policy excluded coverage for contract claims against PAH. {¶2} In Universal Contracting v. Aug (Dec. 30, 2004), 1st Dist. No. C-030719,1 this court held that Universal could not proceed against Aug for negligent misrepresentation where the parties had specifically contracted to protect against potential economic liability resulting from false information about PAH s economic health. In light of this decision, and because there are no genuine issues of material fact 1 Universal Contracting was consolidated with the present appeal for purposes of argument only on May 7, 2004. 2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS remaining in this case as to whether Universal may proceed against Aug for tort damages, the assignment of error is overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. See Civ.R. 56(C). Judgment affirmed. WINKLER, P.J., HILDEBRANDT and GORMAN, JJ. Please Note: The court has placed of record its own entry in this case on the date of the release of this Decision. 3
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.
