Skip to content Skip to main navigation Skip to footer
Ohio Case Law

Cerreta Interiors, LLC v. The New Moon, LLC, 2025-Ohio-4847

Case Information

Court: Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, County of Cuyahoga
Date: 2025-10-23
Citation: 2025-Ohio-4847
Read the Opinion

Summary

Summary: The appellate court vacated the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Cerreta Interiors, LLC and Northeast Ohio HVAC, LLC, finding that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding their alleged roles in contaminating a leased commercial space with crystalline silica dust. The case underscores the evidentiary requirements and limitations in determining liability for independent contractors and toxic exposure claims under Civ.R. 56.

Key Holdings

  • Summary judgment is inappropriate where genuine issues of material fact remain unresolved
  • An employer of an independent contractor is not automatically shielded from liability without evidence supporting the contractor’s independent status
  • The presence of a known carcinogen in dust may be sufficient to establish a triable issue even without proof of airborne exposure
  • Evidence relied upon in summary judgment must be admissible and properly authenticated
  • A motion for summary judgment must address all claims to justify a complete judgment in the movant’s favor

More Information

This case involves a commercial lease dispute in which The New Moon, LLC alleged that negligent construction work conducted by Northeast Ohio HVAC, LLC, hired by the landlord Cerreta Interiors, LLC, caused harmful crystalline silica dust to spread throughout its leased retail premises. New Moon alleged the contamination forced them to cease operations. They brought claims for negligence, breach of lease, and other related causes of action.

The trial court had granted summary judgment in favor of both Cerreta and NEO HVAC. Cerreta argued it was not liable under general principles shielding employers from the torts of independent contractors, while NEO HVAC disputed the presence of harmful dust and challenged the legal bases for the implied warranty and nuisance claims.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals determined that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. Cerreta failed to present sufficient evidence proving that NEO HVAC was an independent contractor, or that it had no liability for alleged failure to remediate. Additionally, Cerreta’s motion did not address all claims asserted, making full summary judgment improper.

The court also rejected NEO HVAC’s arguments that New Moon had not established actionable harm due to the absence of airborne testing. The expert opinion provided by New Moon, supported by uncontested evidence of crystalline silica in the dust, was deemed sufficient to create a triable issue. The appellate court emphasized that inadmissible evidence, including an unauthenticated letter used to argue the dust’s harmlessness, could not support summary judgment.

Ultimately, the court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, reinforcing procedural rigor in summary judgment analysis and clarifying the standard for evaluating contamination claims involving hazardous substances.