The Ohio Court of Claims has ruled on a significant case involving Fisher Plaza, LLC and the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). The court decided on a summary judgment motion from ODOT that dismissed Fisher Plaza's claims regarding property damage caused by a public-improvement project. This ruling has implications for Fisher Plaza and similar property owners who may face challenges in pursuing claims against state agencies.
The case, Fisher Plaza, L.L.C. v. Dept. of Transp., was filed under docket numbers 2024-00871JD and 2025-00792PR. It arose from a public-improvement project in Marion, Ohio, where Fisher Plaza alleged that its property was damaged due to negligence by ODOT and its contractor, Complete General Construction Company. The court's decision has clarified the timeline and requirements for filing claims against state entities.
Background
Fisher Plaza, LLC is a property owner adjacent to a public-improvement project managed by ODOT. In November 2024, Fisher Plaza filed a lawsuit against Complete General Construction Company, the contractor responsible for the project, in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. The lawsuit was based on claims of negligence and nuisance, asserting that the construction activities caused damage to Fisher Plaza's property.
In December 2024, Fisher Plaza also filed a separate action against ODOT in the Ohio Court of Claims, claiming that ODOT's negligence in overseeing the project contributed to the property damage. Both cases were consolidated for discovery and trial purposes. The court held management conferences and set deadlines for both cases, indicating the complexity and significance of the legal issues involved.
The Ruling
On August 6, 2026, ODOT filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Fisher Plaza's claims were time-barred. ODOT contended that Fisher Plaza failed to file its complaint within the two-year statute of limitations set forth in Ohio law. The court, presided over by Judge Lisa L. Sadler, reviewed the evidence, including depositions and affidavits submitted by both parties.
In its ruling, the court found that Fisher Plaza did not commence its action against ODOT within the required timeframe. Judge Sadler stated, "Even when Carte’s deposition testimony is construed in favor of Fisher Plaza, LLC, it demonstrates that Carte, as the owner of Fisher Plaza, knew, or should have known, that Fisher Plaza, LLC sustained particular actionable injuries that were likely caused by ODOT." The court emphasized that Fisher Plaza's claims were filed more than two years after the actionable injury was discovered, leading to the dismissal of the case against ODOT.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for Fisher Plaza and other property owners who may seek to hold state agencies accountable for damages. The court's decision reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory deadlines when filing claims against the state. It establishes a precedent that property owners must be vigilant in recognizing and acting on potential claims in a timely manner.
Furthermore, the court's ruling indicates that even if a property owner is not fully aware of the extent of damages, they may still be held accountable for filing claims within the statutory period. This could deter future claims against ODOT if property owners are unable to demonstrate timely action.
What's Next
Fisher Plaza's claims against ODOT have been dismissed, but the case against Complete General Construction Company will continue in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. The court has remanded the underlying action, allowing Fisher Plaza to pursue its claims against the contractor. Fisher Plaza may consider appealing the decision regarding ODOT, but details on any potential appeal were not available in the court filing.