One Church v. Bhd. Mut. Ins. Co.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that a binding contractual appraisal award may be set aside only for fraud or manifest mistake—an error so palpably wrong that it undermines the intent of the agreement, such as corruption or gross mistake, not a mere error of judgment—and that under Civ.R. 9(B), mistake must be pleaded with facts constituting each element of the claim. One Church's bare allegation that 'additional hidden damages were discovered' after the appraisal award did not identify who discovered the damage, how, where, why it was previously hidden, or why it amounted to a manifest mistake the appraiser would have corrected, so the complaint failed to state a claim and the trial court's judgment on the pleadings was reinstated. Fischer, J., dissenting, would have affirmed the Tenth District, viewing the case as a contract-interpretation question about what property damage the binding appraisal covered rather than a mistake challenge.