Opinion
Case No. 2019-01028AD
02-21-2020
TIMOTHY WOODYARD Plaintiff v. OHIO UNIVERSITY Defendant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
{¶1} Timothy Woodyard ("plaintiff") has filed a complaint against defendant, Ohio University ("OU"). Plaintiff asserts that (1) his daughter is a student at OU; (2) during the 2019-2020 academic term, his daughter was employed by OU and she worked as a building manager at Baker University Center; (3) during February 2019, the LGBT Center (which, according to plaintiff, is located in Baker Center) "was found to have been infested with bed bugs," (4) OU "did not disclose this to the student workers and did not treat the area for some time," and (5) plaintiff's daughter "often worked in close proximity to the LGBT Center." Plaintiff further asserts that his injury or loss occurred on February 5, 2019, at 5:00 p.m.
{¶2} Plaintiff maintains that on March 17, 2019, his daughter (who lived in a four-bedroom apartment) discovered bed bugs in the bedroom of her apartment at University Commons. Plaintiff further maintains that bed bugs only were found in her bedroom. According to plaintiff, after University Housing employed the services of an exterminator, University Housing "billed the residents $975.00 for the extermination treatment." Plaintiff represents that he paid "this bill since the bedbugs were found only in my daughter's bedroom." Plaintiff contends that the "only place my daughter came in contact with know [sic] bed bugs was at Ohio University's Baker Center. If she would have been told there were bedbugs in the area of the LGBT Center she would have avoided the area but she was not told the area was infested."
{¶3} Plaintiff seeks $975.00 in damages. Plaintiff has appended supporting documentation to his complaint, including a copy of a draft payable to "University Housing Management Services, Inc." for $975.00. Plaintiff has indicated that he does not have insurance coverage for his injury or loss. Plaintiff has paid the filing fee of $25.00.
{¶4} OU has filed an Investigation Report (with exhibits) wherein it denies liability. OU does not dispute that bed bugs were found in the LGBT Center in room 354 in Baker Center. OU maintains that, on February 6, 2019, OU was notified about bed bugs in the LGBT Center. According to OU, after investigating and confirming a positive finding for bed bugs, OU "immediately initiated treatment measures." OU maintains that Baker Center employees were notified by email on February 7, 2019. OU contends that the LGBT Center was treated three times and it was "monitored continuously from February 26, 2019 until April 1, 2019, at the which time the Center was cleared." OU disputes plaintiff's contention that it failed to treat the area "for some time," urging that OU "swiftly addressed the bed bug issue, notified the appropriate parties, and provided a prompt and reasonable response to the problem." OU contends that plaintiff's daughter's accessing carts next to a closet to the LGBT Center would not result in the "bed bug situation" that plaintiff's daughter experienced weeks later. OU further contends that plaintiff's daughter's roommates may have had contact with bed bugs and transported bed bugs into the shared living space of the apartment. OU states: "There is simply no way to determine that the Plaintiff's daughter's distant approximation to bed bugs at Baker Center was the cause of her bed bug situation which required treatment." OU clarifies that University Housing Services Management, Inc. is not associated with OU and OU believes that the company is a rental management company that operates in Athens, Ohio.
{¶5} Plaintiff filed a response to OU's Investigation Report. With the response, plaintiff filed copies of invoices in the amounts of $243.75 for his daughter and her three roommates, which plaintiff represents that he paid. Plaintiff states in the response:
"Ohio University had other bed bug infestations they did not disclose at this time."
{¶6} Although plaintiff has not expressly identified a cause of action, plaintiff appears to assert a claim of equitable subrogation. See Black's Law Dictionary 1655 (10th Ed.2014) (defining equitable subrogation). In ABN AMRO Mtge. Group, Inc. v. Kangah, 126 Ohio St.3d 425, 2010-Ohio-3779, 934 N.E.2d 924, the Ohio Supreme Court explained that "the doctrine of legal, or equitable, subrogation 'arises by operation of law when one having a liability or right or a fiduciary relation in the premises pays a debt due by another under such circumstances that he is in equity entitled to the security or obligation held by the creditor whom he has paid."' ABN AMRO Mtge. Group, Inc. at ¶ 8, quoting State v. Jones, 61 Ohio St.2d 99, 102, 399 N.E.2d 1215 (1980), quoting Fed. Union Life Ins. Co. v. Deitsch, 127 Ohio St. 505, 510, 189 N.E. 440 (1934). In ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc., the Ohio Supreme Court noted that "equitable subrogation is an equitable remedy that is appropriate only when the equities clearly favor the party asserting it." Id. at ¶ 13.
Black's Law Dictionary states: "Equitable subrogation usu. arises when (1) the paying party has a liability claim, or fiduciary relationship with the debtor, (2) the party pays to fulfill a legal duty or because of public policy, (3) the paying party is a secondary debtor, (4) the paying party is a surety, or (5) the party pays to protect its own rights or property." Black's Law Dictionary 1655 (10th Ed. 2014).
{¶7} Here, the equities do not clearly favor plaintiff. With OU's Investigation Report, OU appended a copy of work order for "BAKERUC - 354 (Office)" with this comment: "2/6/2019 11:15- 13:00 Inspection + for bed bugs, foundin front desk computer chair. Night watch monitors installed. 2/8/2019 8:00- 17:00 pm Suite prepped for treatment. 22:00 to 8:30 am Heat and residual chemical treatment by Tri-County Pest Control. 2/27/2019 14:00- 16:00 Tri-County second treatment. 3/14/2019 15:00-17:00 Tri-County third treatment. Monitors ran from 2/6/2019 until 4/1/2019. Monitors were clear from 2/26/2019 to 4/1/2019. No reports of bugs or bites over this time. Cleared."
{¶8} According to the work order, bed bugs were found in a front desk computer chair in the LGBT Center (Baker 354). However, according to plaintiff's daughter, during her "down time," she sat at the "4th floor guest services desk"—which apparently is not the front desk computer chair in the LGBT Center. Moreover, according to plaintiff's daughter, as part of her duties, she would walk "by the LGBT center," and she would "grab carts from the closet next to the LGBT center." Notably, however, plaintiff's daughter does not represent that she routinely entered the LGBT Center as part of her job duties.
{¶9} The OU work order also tends to rebut plaintiff's assertion that OU failed to treat the area for "some time" because, according to the work order, night watch monitors were installed on the day that the bed bug infestation was found; the area was prepped two days after discovery of the bed bug infestation; and treatment was begun three weeks after the bed bug infestation was discovered.
{¶10} With the Investigation Report OU appended a copy of an email message of February 7, 2019, from Nicolette Manning (Graduate Assistant - Operations - Event Management) to plaintiff's daughter (Taylor Woodyard). In the email Ms. Manning informs Ms. Woodyard about the bed bug infestation, stating: "Also, as I am sure you are aware, there was a confirmed case of bed bugs in the LGBT center. * * *." This evidence rebuts plaintiff's claims that OU failed to disclose the bed bug infestation in the LGBT Center to plaintiff's daughter and that, if plaintiff's daughter "[had] been told there were bedbugs in the area of the LGBT Center she would have avoided the area but she was not told the area was infested."
{¶11} Upon consideration of the evidence in the record, the court holds that the equities in this cause disfavor plaintiff. Judgment is therefore rendered in favor of OU. TIMOTHY WOODYARD Plaintiff v. OHIO UNIVERSITY Defendant Case No. 2019-01028AD Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION
{¶12} Having considered all the evidence in the claim file, and for the reasons set forth in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff.
/s/_________
DANIEL R. BORCHERT
Deputy Clerk Filed 2/21/20
Sent to S.C. reporter 4/9/21