Court News Ohio
Court News Ohio
Court News Ohio

Company Could Not File Second Lawsuit to Avoid Arbitration

Image of a dump truck being loaded by an excavator truck.

The Supreme Court ruled in a case involving a Pennsylvania trucking company, a Cleveland area truck seller, and a warranty from a North Carolina firm.

Image of a dump truck being loaded by an excavator truck.

The Supreme Court ruled in a case involving a Pennsylvania trucking company, a Cleveland area truck seller, and a warranty from a North Carolina firm.

A trucking company was attempting to avoid arbitrating a warranty dispute in North Carolina. But it could not avoid the order finding that the arbitration provision was valid by voluntarily dismissing a lawsuit it filed in Cuyahoga County and then refiling the same case months later in hopes that the trial court judge would grant a more favorable decision, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

The Supreme Court addressed whether a trial court could reassess a decision made in a first lawsuit through a second lawsuit, instead of requiring the objecting party to appeal the court’s ruling in the first lawsuit. In a unanimous opinion, the Court found the traditional legal rule of res judicata, which prevents a court from considering an issue that has already been resolved, applied.  

The decision reversed an Eighth District Court of Appeals finding that an exception to the res judicata rule applied when the trial court, after receiving more information, considered its original ruling to be “unreasonable or unjust.” In this case, a trucking company, AJZ Hauling, bought a vehicle from a Cleveland area dealer that came with a warranty provided by a North Carolina-based firm.

Writing for the Court, Justice Patrick F. Fischer stated that the Supreme Court has recognized the right of a court to reconsider a decision to prevent an injustice. However, the rule exception did not apply because AJZ had a “full and fair opportunity” to challenge the arbitration provision in the repair warranty provided by TruNorth Warranty Programs of North America.

When the trial court ordered AJZ to arbitrate with TruNorth, AJZ did not appeal that decision. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court’s original decision to send the case to arbitration in North Carolina stands.

Pennsylvania Company Buys Truck From Cleveland Area Dealer
In 2018, Pennsylvania-based AJZ Hauling bought a 2011 Kenworth truck from Premier Truck Sales & Rental in Cuyahoga County. The purchase included a warranty from TruNorth, which stated that arbitration was the “sole method of dispute resolution” in any legal action related to the warranty. The warranty stated that matters had to be litigated in TruNorth’s home base in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.

AJZ had several issues with the truck and submitted five repair claims to Premier and TruNorth, seeking coverage under the TruNorth warranty. All the claims were denied, and AJZ paid out of pocket to repair the truck.

In May 2019, AJZ sued Premier and TruNorth in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, alleging that TruNorth breached the terms of the warranty and should reimburse AJZ for the repair costs. Premier and AJZ settled their dispute, but TruNorth asked the court to stay the proceedings and direct the parties to arbitration, which, according to the warranty, was to take place in North Carolina.

Through an August 2019 journal entry, the trial court granted TruNorth’s request to arbitrate the case. In November 2019, AJZ voluntarily dismissed the Ohio lawsuit without prejudice. A month later, AJZ filed a second lawsuit in the same court against TruNorth, raising the same issues it made in the first case. AJZ argued that the TruNorth warranty was unenforceable because it was “unconscionable, unreasonable, and unjust.”

TruNorth objected. It argued that the court order in the first case was a final appealable order
and should be enforced. If AJZ disagreed with the original ruling, it would need to either file a motion with the trial court to ask it to reconsider its decision or appeal the decision to the court of appeals, TruNorth asserted.

Without a hearing, the trial court ruled that the arbitration provision was “procedurally and substantially unconscionable” and that AJZ could proceed with its Cuyahoga County lawsuit against the warranty company. The decision did not address the trial court’s decision in the first lawsuit to send the case to arbitration.

Warranty Company Challenges Trial Court’s Changed Position
TruNorth appealed to the Eighth District, arguing that the trial court should enforce its original decision. In the appeals court, AJZ admitted that the trial court’s original order in favor of TruNorth was final and could have been appealed. However, instead of applying the rule of res judicata, which would have prevented the trial court from reconsidering its decision, AJZ argued that an exception allowed for the second lawsuit because the warranty’s requirements were unreasonable and unjust.

The Eighth District noted that the trial court ruled the warranty was valid without making any factual findings or conclusions of law. In the second lawsuit, the trial court conducted a more thorough review and determined it was wrong to enforce the arbitration provision.

TruNorth appealed the Eighth District’s decision to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.

Supreme Court Examined Rules Regarding Final Decisions
Justice Fischer explained that res judicata ensures the finality of decisions. The rule prevents a party from filing subsequent lawsuits regarding an issue or legal claim already decided by an order that can be appealed.

The opinion noted that when the case reached the Eighth District, AJZ admitted that the trial court’s original decision was a final appealable order. AJZ chose not to appeal or file a motion that asked the court to reconsider its original decision. Res judicata applied to AJZ’s challenge to the arbitration agreement, and the company was prevented from contesting the agreement through a second lawsuit, the Supreme Court stated. Justice Fischer wrote that the question for the Supreme Court was whether the exception to res judicata should be applied to AJZ to prevent an unreasonable or unjust result.

Justice Fischer wrote “that res judicata is not to be so rigidly applied ‘when fairness and justice would not support it.’” The opinion also noted that in prior decisions, the Court stated it would not apply res judicata if a decision would conflict with an “overriding public policy or result in a manifest injustice.” However, the opinion stated that the Supreme Court has never decided a case that merited the exception.

“We have recognized that an exception to res judicata may apply in some extraordinary situations, but we have yet to apply such an exception,” the Court stated.

The Court explained that if four factors exist, then res judicata prevents a party from filing a second lawsuit. A court’s decision would stand if a party had a full and fair opportunity to be heard; the trial court issued a final appealable order on the issue; the parties did not file an appeal or seek another means to challenge the court order; and the parties “did not commit bad-faith acts” during the course of the case.

The Court ruled AJZ did have a full and fair opportunity to challenge the arbitration provision, and the trial court issued an order in favor of TruNorth that AJZ could have immediately appealed. AJZ did not appeal the decision. The Court noted that AJZ did not present any facts that TruNorth acted in any manner that should prevent the first ruling from being enforced.

AJZ has not demonstrated how applying res judicata “would contravene an overriding public policy or result in a manifest injustice,” the Court concluded.

2022-0750. AJZ Hauling LLC v. TruNorth Warranty Programs of N. Am., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3097.

Video camera icon View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.

Adobe PDF PDF files may be viewed, printed, and searched using the free Acrobat® Reader
Acrobat Reader is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.