The Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled that the Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority may be liable for nearly $350,000 in prejudgment interest to a developer. This decision stems from a breach of contract case involving the upgrading of Cincinnati’s downtown convention center.
In 2021, the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court found that the Port breached its contract with Vandercar, a development company, regarding the Millennium Hotel's purchase and demolition. Vandercar sought prejudgment interest as it awaited payment from the Port. Initially, both the trial court and the First District Court of Appeals ruled that the Port was immune from such penalties.
Justice Patrick F. Fischer, writing for the majority in a 5-2 decision, stated that “no port authority is immune from liability” under state law. The Court reversed previous rulings and remanded the case for further proceedings. Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices R. Patrick DeWine, Michael P. Donnelly, and Jennifer Brunner supported this opinion.
Dissenting, Justice Melody Stewart argued that a 1985 state law provides immunity to political subdivisions like port authorities against certain lawsuits. She believed Vandercar was not entitled to prejudgment interest due to lack of statutory or contractual provisions allowing it. Twelfth District Court of Appeals Judge Mike Powell joined her dissent.
Vandercar had agreed to buy the Millennium Hotel for $36 million and assign ownership rights to the Port in exchange for a $5 million development fee if bonds were issued for redevelopment. The Port acquired bonds but claimed they were not meant for redevelopment purposes.
The Supreme Court analyzed laws governing port authorities and interest payments during legal disputes delay resolution. It concluded there is no provision exempting port authorities from paying prejudgment interest under R.C. 1343.03 when sued in common pleas court.
The Port requested applying a precedent set by Beifuss v. Westerville Bd. of Edn., which exempted government bodies like school boards from paying prejudgment interest on back pay awards to employees—a request denied by the Court.
Justice Stewart's dissent noted that local governments have some immunity from tort lawsuits under R.C Chapter 2744 enacted in 1985 but did not extend this immunity explicitly to include exemption from prejudgment interest payments.