Windsor Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. , 2021 Ohio 158 ( 2021 )

[Cite as Windsor Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 2021-Ohio-158.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
WINDSOR MEDICAL CENTER, INC. JUDGES:
Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs-
Case No. 2020CA00085
TIME WARNER CABLE, INC. DBA
SPECTRUM BUSINESS, ET AL
Defendants-Appellants O P I N IO N
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Stark County Court of
Common Pleas, Case No. 2018CV02199
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: January 20, 2021
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendants-Appellants
SCOTT P. SANDROCK ROBERT W. BURGER
ELIZABETH SHIVELY BOATWRIGHT CAITLIN R. THOMAS
Brennan, Manna & Diamond, LLC Thompson Hine, LLP
75 E. Market Street 3900 Key Center
Akron, Ohio 44308 127 Public Square
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
Stark County, Case No. 2020CA00085 2
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Defendants-appellants Time Warner Cable, Inc, dba Spectrum Business, et
al. (“Spectrum”) appeal the February 12, 2020 Judgment Entry entered by the Stark
County Court of Common Pleas, which denied their motion for judgment notwithstanding
the verdict. Plaintiff-appellee is Windsor Medical Center, Inc. (“Windsor Medical”).
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} Windsor Medical is a family-owned business, which operates a skilled
nursing and senior living center in North Canton, Stark County, Ohio. Spectrum is
engaged in the business of providing telephone, internet, cable, and other technology
services to individuals and businesses. Windsor Medical contracted with Spectrum to
provide telephone, internet, and cable television services for its office and residents. The
parties’ business relationship dated back to at least 2012.
{¶3} Sometime in 2015, disputes arose between the parties over charges for
international calls and double billing for internet service. Windsor Medical’s attempts to
resolve the disputes were unsuccessful.
{¶4} On November 14, 2018, Windsor Medical filed a complaint against
Spectrum, asserting claims of fraud and violations of Ohio’s Deceptive Trade Practices
Act (R.C. Chapter 4165). Spectrum filed an answer on December 12, 2018. The parties
participated in mediation, which proved unsuccessful. A second mediation was
scheduled, but ultimately cancelled.
{¶5} On October 21, 2019, a week before trial, Spectrum filed a motion for leave
to file a counterclaim as well as a motion to continue. The trial court denied both motions.
The matter proceeded to jury trial on October 28, 2019.
Stark County, Case No. 2020CA00085 3
International Service
{¶6} Seth Swallen, who worked in administration and information technology for
Windsor Medical during the time period at issue, testified regarding the contract
negotiations and discussions he had with Spectrum regarding international phone
service. When Spectrum’s sales representative Patrick Harrison asked if Windsor
Medical wanted Spectrum, Time Warner at the time, to provide long distance and
international calls, Swallen expressly declined international service. Harrison advised
Swallen he would make sure international service was not available at Windsor Medical.
{¶7} Swallen recalled, in September, 2015, Windsor Medical received a bill from
Spectrum which included a charge labeled “international usage” with a service date of
August 5, 2015. Swallen immediately contacted Spectrum about the charge. At
Spectrum’s direction, Swallen verified Windsor Medical had taken the appropriate
measures with its equipment to prevent international calls. The following month, Windsor
Medical received a bill from Spectrum which still included the international service charge
totaling $7,753.62, with taxes and fees. Swallen contacted Harrison as well as a risk
management specialist at Spectrum regarding the bill. Swallen indicated his belief
Windsor Medical was owed a credit for the international charges as it had requested the
phone service not include an international component.
{¶8} Several months later, Spectrum acknowledged it owed Windsor Medical a
credit for the international service charges and such would be forthcoming. Although
Windsor Medical remained current on all undisputed charges, it continued to receive past
due notices from Spectrum. Swallen made multiple calls to Spectrum, attempting to
resolve the issue. He was repeatedly placed on hold and transferred from one
Stark County, Case No. 2020CA00085 4
department to another, never speaking to anyone with authority to resolve the matter. On
December 28, 2015, Swallen emailed Spectrum regarding the charges and requesting a
manager with authority contact him. A month later, on January 28, 2016, Swallen
received an email from Ar’Qua Welch, a collections agent with Spectrum, advising him
Spectrum had issued a partial credit of $2,894.99, and a tax credit of $743.93.
{¶9} On February 4, 2016, Swallen emailed Welch, Harrison, and account
representative Armand DiDonato, requesting the balance of the promised credit for the
international charges. Welch responded, explaining she could not issue the credit and
directed Swallen to another department. The other department was unable to resolve the
issue. Windsor Medical continued to pay all undisputed charges on its accounts.
{¶10} On February 11, 2016, Windsor Medical received a notice from Spectrum,
advising the phone system would be shut off if the remaining balance was not paid.
Swallen contacted DiDonato, who advised Swallen to pay the balance if he did not want
Windsor Medical’s service shut off. Swallen paid the balance to avoid a disruption in
phone service. Windsor Medical never received the full promised credit for the
international service charges.
{¶11} Subsequently, in January, 2017, Windsor Medical received a bill from
Spectrum which included a second international service charge, totaling $3,214.43, with
taxes and fees. Windsor Medical contacted Spectrum regarding the charge. Spectrum
advised Windsor Medical to check the security recommendations. Ultimately, Windsor
Medical paid the charges to avoid termination of its phone service. Spectrum never
credited Windsor Medical for the second international service charge.
Stark County, Case No. 2020CA00085 5
Internet Accounts
{¶12} In the fall of 2015, Harrison approached Swallen about moving Windsor
Medical’s internet service from a regional account to a national account, promising better
internet speed at a lower rate. Swallen accepted the offer and signed a new internet
contract in December, 2015. Swallen understood Harrison would have the old service
disconnected when the new service was up and running. Although the new service
required updated equipment, Harrison promised the switch would be “turnkey” and he
would handle everything.
{¶13} Harrison never notified Swallen the new service was ready. Windsor
Medical began receiving separate bills for each of the internet accounts. When Swallen
contacted Harrison about the double billing, Harrison informed Swallen he (Swallen)
would need to cancel the old account as Harrison was not permitted to do so. Swallen
attempted to cancel the account, but was unsuccessful. The Spectrum representative
advised Swallen she could not locate the account with the account number Harrison had
provided to Swallen. Meanwhile, Windsor Medical continued to receive separate bills for
each of the internet accounts.
{¶14} On June 2, 2016, Harrison emailed Swallen, acknowledging there should
only be one internet account and inquiring whether Swallen had cancelled the first
account. Swallen advised Harrison he was getting the “runaround” and had been unable
to cancel the account. Harrison put Swallen in touch with DiDonato. When Swallen and
DiDonato met to discuss the situation, DiDonato informed Swallen Harrison was no longer
working for Spectrum and Windsor Medical was not the only business Harrison had
convinced to move from regional to national accounts in order to improve his sales
Stark County, Case No. 2020CA00085 6
numbers. DiDonato apologized and promised to correct the situation. In addition,
DiDonato, like Harrison, indicated the new service would require new equipment.
Although Windsor Medical was billed for two internet services, Spectrum never installed
the required equipment or updated the service in any manner.
{¶15} Almost a year later, in April, 2017, DiDonato emailed Swallen, inquiring
whether Windsor Medical had two internet connections. DiDonato indicated he would
have to engage a national account team to resolve the billing issue with the second
internet account. DiDonato explained the original internet account would need to be
disconnected to avoid double billing and he would get the paperwork completed.
DiDonato added he “was never notified by anyone that the service needed disconnected
to prevent double billing.” Tr. Vol. I at 183.
{¶16} Despite ongoing discussions to resolve the issues, Windsor Medical
received multiple threats of termination of phone service from Spectrum. At one point in
2017, a third-party collection agency came to Windsor Medical and advised the accounts
payable individual the telephone service would be shut off that day if payment was not
made. Windsor Medical paid Spectrum $2,165.96, to avoid disruption of its phone
service.
{¶17} Nonetheless, on May 4, 2017, Spectrum shut off the phone system at
Windsor Medical. When Swallen arrived at the facility, he was met with a nursing staff in
a state of panic. Nurses were unable to send and receive medication and lab orders.
Family members of the residents arrived, concerned they were unable to reach their loved
ones on the phone. DiDonato eventually returned Swallen’s calls and emails. He stated
Windsor Medical’s account was not in a non-pay status and suggested Swallen contact
Stark County, Case No. 2020CA00085 7
fiber support. Fiber support indicated the phone system was disconnected for
nonpayment. In a May 5, 2017 email, DiDonato, acknowledging the corrections which
needed to be made on the account, advised Swallen the fastest way to restore service
was to pay the past due amount. Windsor Medical paid the past due balance.
{¶18} Months passed without resolution. Then, in August, 2017, Swallen received
an email from Spectrum’s collections department, demanding Windsor Medical pay
$1,129.48, to avoid another phone shut off.
{¶19} After hearing all the evidence and deliberating, the jury found in favor of
Windsor Medical on its fraud claim. The jury awarded Windsor Medical $22,000.00, in
compensatory damages and $225,000.00, in punitive damages. The jury also awarded
Windsor Medical reasonable attorney fees. The jury found in favor of Spectrum on
Windsor Medical's claim for deceptive trade practices.
{¶20} On November 25, 2019, Spectrum filed a Motion for Judgment
Notwithstanding the Verdict, or, in the alternative, Remittitur. Therein, Spectrum asserted
the economic loss doctrine barred Windsor Medical’s fraud claim as such claim stemmed
from Spectrum’s alleged performance or non-performance under the parties’ contract.
Also, on November 25, 2019, Windsor Medical filed a Motion for Prejudgment Interest.
{¶21} Via Judgment Entry filed February 12, 2020, the trial court denied
Spectrum’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict. The trial court found a
reasonable juror could conclude Spectrum’s conduct went beyond a mere breach of
contract. The trial court further found the economic loss doctrine did not bar Windsor
Medical’s fraud claim. The trial court concluded Windsor Medical presented sufficient
Stark County, Case No. 2020CA00085 8
evidence to support the jury’s finding of fraud and to support the jury’s award of punitive
damages.
{¶22} It is from this judgment entry Spectrum appeals, raising the following
assignment of error:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING SPECTRUM MID-
AMERICA, LLC’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE
VERDICT. (FEBRUARY 12, 2020 JUDGMENT ENTRY.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
{¶23} Civil Rule 50(B) governs motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict
(JNOV). When ruling on a motion for JNOV, a trial court applies the same test as in
reviewing a motion for a directed verdict. Ronske v. Heil Co., 5th Dist. Stark No. 2006-
CA-00168, 2007-Ohio-5417; Pariseau v. Wedge Products, Inc., 36 Ohio St.3d 124, 522
N.E.2d 511 (1988). In reviewing a motion for JNOV, courts do not consider the weight of
the evidence or the witness credibility; rather, courts consider the much narrower legal
question of whether sufficient evidence exists to support the verdict. Texler v. D.O.
Summers Cleaners & Shirt Laundry Co., 81 Ohio St.3d 677, 693 N.E.2d 271 (1998). In
other words, if there is evidence to support the nonmoving party's side so that reasonable
minds could reach different conclusions, the court may not usurp the jury's function and
the motion must be denied. Osler v. City of Lorain, 28 Ohio St.3d 345, 504 N.E.2d 19(1986). Appellate review of a ruling on a motion for JNOV is de novo. Midwest Energy
Stark County, Case No. 2020CA00085 9
Consultants, L.L.C. v. Utility Pipeline, Ltd., 5th Dist. Stark No. 2006CA00048, 2006-Ohio-
6232.
I.
{¶24} Spectrum sets forth three grounds upon which it predicates its assertion the
trial court erred in denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. First,
Spectrum contends the economic loss doctrine barred Windsor Medical’s fraud claim as
such claim sounded in contract. Next, Spectrum argues, assuming the economic loss
doctrine did not bar Windsor Medical’s fraud claim, Windsor Medical failed to prove the
essential elements of fraud. Third, Spectrum maintains the evidence did not support a
finding Spectrum acted with actual malice; therefore, the award of punitive damages was
not warranted. We disagree.
Fraud and the Economic Loss Doctrine
{¶25} To prevail on a fraud claim, “a plaintiff must prove: (1) a representation, or
if a duty to disclose exists, concealment of a fact, (2) that is material to the transaction at
issue, (3) made falsely, with knowledge of its falsity, or with such utter disregard and
recklessness as to whether it is true or false that knowledge may be inferred, (4) with the
intent to mislead another into relying on it, (5) justifiable reliance upon the representation
or concealment, and (6) a resulting injury proximately caused by the reliance.” Andrew v.
Power Marketing Direct, Inc., 10th Dist. No. 11AP-603, 978 N.E.2d 974, 2012-Ohio-4371,
¶ 49, citing Burr v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 23 Ohio St.3d 69, 73, 491 N.E.2d 1101(1986).
{¶26} The economic loss rule generally prevents recovery in tort of damages for
purely economic loss. Corporex Dev. & Constr. Mgt., Inc. v. Shook, Inc., 106 Ohio St.3d
Stark County, Case No. 2020CA00085 10
412, 2005-Ohio-5409, ¶ 6, 835 N.E.2d 701. That is, “a plaintiff who has suffered only
economic loss due to another’s negligence has not been injured in a manner which is
legally cognizable or compensable.” Id. (Citation omitted.) “The economic-loss rule
stems from the principle that, ‘[i]n the absence of privity of contract between two disputing
parties the general rule is “there is no * * * duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid
intangible economic loss or losses to others that do not arise from tangible physical harm
to persons and tangible things.” ’ ” Waverly City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Triad
Architects, Inc., 10th Dist. No. 08AP-329, 2008-Ohio-6917, ¶ 26, quoting Floor Craft
Covering, Inc. v. Parma Community Gen. Hosp. Assn., 54 Ohio St.3d 1, 3, 560 N.E.2d
206 (1990), quoting Prosser & Keeton, Law of Torts, Section 92, 657 (5th Ed.1984).
{¶27} There are exceptions, however, to the application of
the economic loss rule to bar recovery in tort of purely economic loss. A plaintiff may
pursue such a tort claim if it is “based exclusively upon [a] discrete, preexisting duty in
tort and not upon any terms of a contract or rights accompanying privity.” Corporex,
supra at ¶ 9. These types of exempt claims may include negligent misrepresentation,
breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and conversion. Potts v. Safeco Ins. Co., 5th Dist. No.
2009 CA 0083, 2010-Ohio-2042, ¶ 21; Morgan v. Mikhail, 10th Dist. No. 08AP-87, 2008-
Ohio-4598, ¶ 69.
{¶28} Therefore, a tort claim can proceed where “the facts of the case show an
intentional tort committed independently, but in connection with a breach of contract * *
*.” Burns v. Prudential Securities, Inc., 167 Ohio App.3d 809, 2006–Ohio–3550, ¶ 99.
Accordingly, where a tort claim alleges a duty was breached independent of the contract,
the economic loss rule does not apply. See, Campbell v. Krupp, 195 Ohio App.3d 573,
Stark County, Case No. 2020CA00085 11
961 N.E.2d 205, 2011–Ohio–2694, ¶ 16 (6th Dist.) See also, Eysoldt v. ProScan
Imaging, 194 Ohio App.3d 630, 2011–Ohio–2359, ¶21 (1st Dist.) (finding
the economic loss rule does not apply to intentional torts, as they are breaches of duties
beyond those created by contract). Where the tort claim alleges a breach of an
independent duty, it must also allege damages that are separate and distinct from the
breach of contract. Strategy Group for Media, Inc. v. Lowden, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 12
CAE 03 0016, 2013–Ohio–1330, ¶ 30.
{¶29} Spectrum claims Windsor Medical failed to identify a duty separate from
Spectrum’s contractual obligations. We disagree. While the parties were in privity of
contract, we find Spectrum breached duties which were independent of those contractual
obligations. A review of the record, including a reading of the entire trial transcript, which
is summarized below, reveals Spectrum, through its representatives, engaged in a pattern
of misrepresentations, false promises, and threats.
{¶30} Despite assurances from Patrick Harrison Windsor Medical’s telephones
would not have international calling capabilities, Spectrum billed Windsor Medical for
international calls in September, 2015. Swallen made exhaustive attempts to resolve the
billing issue, but was repeatedly placed on hold or redirected to individuals who did not
have authority to help him. Months later Spectrum acknowledged the error and indicated
a credit would be forthcoming, however, Spectrum continued to send past due notices to
Windsor Medical. Spectrum eventually issued a partial credit. Swallen’s attempts to
obtain the balance of the promised credit was met with the same runaround he previously
experienced. Spectrum never fully credited Windsor Medical for the billing error and the
amount remained “past due”. In January, 2017, Spectrum again billed Windsor Medical
Stark County, Case No. 2020CA00085 12
for international calls. Spectrum failed to resolve the billing issue and threatened to
disconnect phone service if the disputed charge was not paid. Windsor Medical
subsequently paid the un-owed past due charges to avoid disruptions to its phone service.
Spectrum never credited Windsor Medical for these charges.
{¶31} In the fall of 2015, Harrison approached Swallen about replacing Windsor
Medical’s internet service, promising better internet speed at a lower rate. Swallen signed
a new internet contract in December, 2015. Harrison represented he would have the old
service disconnected when the new service was ready. Harrison never notified Swallen
the new service was ready and never disconnected the old service. Nonetheless,
Spectrum billed Windsor Medical for two separate internet accounts. When Swallen
contacted Harrison about the double billing, Harrison informed Swallen he was not
permitted to cancel the account and Swallen would need to do so. Swallen attempted to
cancel the account, but the account number Harrison had provided to Swallen was
incorrect. Spectrum continued to double bill Windsor Medical.
{¶32} Swallen met with account representative Armand DiDonato to discuss the
situation. DiDonato promised to resolve the double billing. Although the new service
required new equipment, and despite continuing to double bill Windsor Medical, Spectrum
never installed the necessary equipment for the new service and never provided Windsor
Medical with a new IP address.
{¶33} Inexplicably, almost a year later, DiDonato emailed Swallen, inquiring
whether Windsor Medical had two internet connections. DiDonato represented he would
contact a national account team to resolve the credit issue with the second internet
account and complete any paperwork necessary to do so. Despite these ongoing
Stark County, Case No. 2020CA00085 13
discussions to resolve the issues, Spectrum issued multiple threats of termination of
phone service. At one point in 2017, a third-party collection agency came to the facility
and advised the accounts payable individual the telephone service would be shut off that
day if payment was not received. Windsor Medical paid Spectrum $2,165.96, to avoid
any disruptions in its phone service. Spectrum applied the payment to the disputed
internet account and not the phone service account.
{¶34} Subsequently, on May 4, 2017, Spectrum shut off the phone system at
Windsor Medical due to nonpayment of the admittedly disputed internet charges.
DiDonato informed Swallen Windsor Medical’s account was not in a non-pay status,
however, fiber support advised Swallen the phone system was, in fact, disconnected for
nonpayment of the internet account. DiDonato acknowledged the erroneous double
billing, but advised Swallen to pay the disputed internet charges as doing so was the
fastest way to restore the phone service. Windsor Medical paid the disputed charges.
Months passed without resolution. Then, in August, 2017, Spectrum’s collection
department emailed Swallen, demanding an additional $1,129.48, to avoid another phone
shut off.
{¶35} The evidence presented establishes the fraud claim asserted by Windsor
Medical did not arise out of the parties’ contracts, but went beyond and were independent
of those agreements. Windsor Medical’s fraud claim went beyond Spectrum’s failure to
abide by the terms of the parties’ contracts. Spectrum engaged in deceptive billing
practices, charging Windsor Medical for international calls and a second internet service
which did not exist. Spectrum fraudulently represented it would resolve the billing issues,
Stark County, Case No. 2020CA00085 14
but instead of doing so, Spectrum disconnected phone service forcing Windsor Medical
to pay what amounts to a ransom.
{¶36} Spectrum further contends the damages Windsor Medical alleged under its
fraud claim were entirely dependent upon the terms of the parties’ contracts. We
disagree. The damages Windsor Medical sought were the result of Spectrum’s deceptive
and fraudulent billing. The damages were amounts Windsor Medical paid to prevent
disruption to its phone service which was vital to its operations. These payments included
charges for international calls, which Spectrum conceded were erroneously billed and for
which Windsor Medical was owed a credit, and for a second internet account, which
Spectrum never actually installed. The amounts Windsor Medical paid Spectrum were not
owed under the contracts.
{¶37} Because there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict, we find
the trial court did not err in denying Spectrum’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the
verdict on the fraud claim and the economic loss doctrine.
Punitive Damages
{¶38} In cases alleging fraud, in order to be awarded punitive damages, the
plaintiff must establish not only the elements of the tort itself, but must also show either
the fraud is aggravated by the existence of malice or ill, or must demonstrate the
wrongdoing is particularly gross or egregious. Atram v. Star Tool & Die Corp. (1989), 64
Ohio App.3d 388, 391–392, 581 N.E.2d 1110; Mid–America Acceptance Co. v.
Lightle (1989), 63 Ohio App.3d 590, 602, 579 N.E.2d 721. There must be an element of
malice, oppressive conduct, or outrage to sustain such an award. Id.Stark County, Case No. 2020CA00085 15
{¶39} The “actual malice” necessary for purposes of an award
of punitive damages has been defined as (1) that state of mind under which a person's
conduct is characterized by hatred, ill will or a spirit of revenge, or (2) a conscious
disregard for the rights and safety of other persons that has a great probability of causing
substantial harm. Berge v. Columbus Community Cable Access (1999), 136 Ohio App.3d
281, 316, 736 N.E.2d 517, quoting Preston v. Murty (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 334, 512
N.E.2d 1174, syllabus; Kemp v. Kemp, 5th Dist. No. 04CA011, 161 Ohio App.3d 671,
2005-Ohio-3120, 831 N.E.2d 1038, ¶ 73.
{¶40} Whether actual malice exists is a question for the trier of fact. Spires v.
Oxford Mining Co., LLC, 7th Dist. Belmont No. 17 BE 0002, 2018-Ohio-2769, 116 N.E.3d
717, ¶ 32, citing Buckeye Union Ins. Co. v. New England Ins. Co. (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d
280, 720 N.E.2d 495; R.C. 2315.21(C)(1). “The same standard of review is employed to
assess the weight of evidence whether the finding is for compensatory damages or the
elements necessary to justify an award of punitive damages.” Id., citing Bosak v. Kalmer,
7th Dist. Mahoning No. 01 CA 18, 2002-Ohio-3463, ¶ 36. Factual determinations will not
be overturned as long as they are supported by some competent, credible evidence going
to all the essential elements of the case. Id., citing C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr.
Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578, syllabus.
{¶41} The trial court properly instructed the jury on the standard for the imposition
of punitive damages. A jury is presumed to follow the instructions of the trial court. MCM
Home Builders, LLC v. Sheehan, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 18 CAE 09 0074, 2019-Ohio-
3899, 2019 WL 4724682, ¶ 48 citing Pang v. Minch, 53 Ohio St.3d 186, 187, 559 N.E.2d
1313 (1990), paragraph four of the syllabus. This Court will not invade the province of a
Stark County, Case No. 2020CA00085 16
properly instructed jury which reached a reasonable decision based upon the evidence
presented to it. Estate of Baxter v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co., 73 Ohio App.3d 512, 521
(1992).
{¶42} Upon review and as detailed, supra, we conclude the jurors could have
reasonably determined Spectrum acted with actual malice which warranted an award of
punitive damages. The evidence supports the jury’s determination Spectrum’s conduct
was, indeed, egregious. Accordingly, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
confirming the award via its ruling on the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict
on the issue of punitive damages.
{¶43} Spectrum’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶44} The judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, P. J.
Delaney, J. and
Baldwin, J. concur