Sam's Excavating Unlimited, Inc. v. Smith

[Cite as Sam's Excavating Unlimited, Inc. v. Smith, 2026-Ohio-4394.] IN THE OHIO COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO SAM’S EXCAVATING UNLIMITED, INC Case No. 2026 CA 00014 Plaintiff-Appellee Opinion And Judgment Entry v. Appeal from the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2023 CV 00125 ASHLEY SMITH Judgment: Affirmed Defendant-Appellant Date of Judgment Entry: November 5, 2026 BEFORE: William B. Hoffman, Kevin W. Popham, and David M. Gormley, Judges APPEARANCES: Erica Ann Probst, for Plaintiff-Appellee, Daniel J. Fruth, for Defendant- Appellant OPINION Popham, J., {¶1} Appellant Ashley Smith (“Smith”) appeals the judgment of the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas overruling her objections to the magistrate’s decision. Appellee is Sam’s Excavating, Unlimited, Inc. (“Sams”). For the reasons below we affirm. Facts & Procedural History {¶2} On February 24, 2023, Sam’s filed a complaint against Smith, asserting claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel. Smith filed an answer and counterclaims for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty.  {¶3} On October 17, 2024, the magistrate conducted a bench trial on the parties’ claims. At the beginning of the trial, the magistrate noted that he had viewed the premises the previous day. The following testimony and evidence were adduced at the trial. {¶4} Smith owns the property located at 7914 Marietta Road but was having difficulty obtaining estimates for a foundation system upon which to build a home. Her grandfather, Richard Estep, Sr., acting on Smith’s behalf, obtained an estimate from Sam’s for pouring the footers and basement walls. Estep also agreed to oversee the project. Smith testified that she informed Eric, who is Sam’s employee, that she did not want any calcium in the concrete used to pour the foundation or basement walls1. Smith was not present when the excavation occurred or when the concrete was poured. Smith testified that Sam’s used gravel – for which she had paid – located on the property. {¶5} Smith understood that waterproofing and backfilling were not included in Sam’s estimate Estep chose on her behalf. Sam’s poured the footers on December 8, 2021, and the basement walls on December 15, 2021. When Smith viewed the walls on January 1, 2022, she was unhappy with their appearance because she observed what experts later identified as cold joints and honeycombing. Smith called William Cline (“Cline”), the owner of Sam’s, to express her concerns about the walls. Smith testified that Cline was unkind to her but agreed to inspect the property. Smith was not present when Cline inspected the property. Instead, her ex-fiancée, Brandon Geiger, met with Cline. 1 When concrete is poured during winter months, calcium chloride is added to the concrete mixture to generate internal heat that helps the concrete gain strength in low temperatures where normal curing would stall. However, the allegation is that calcium chloride should not be added to concrete poured around steel rebar, as was included here, because the chloride causes the steel rebar to rust creating internal pressure that leads to concrete cracking, spalling and delamination.  {¶6} When asked whether Cline or anyone else from Sam’s returned to her home after that day, Smith testified, “No. I told him [Cline] on the phone that I did not want him to come back. I did not want anyone from Sam’s coming back if their work was that bad. There’s no way I wanted them to proceed.” {¶7} After visiting the property, Cline requested that a structural engineer inspect it. Smith testified that she was not present when the engineer inspected the property, but Geiger was present during the inspection. {¶8} Smith hired her own engineer, Donald Liszkay, to inspect the foundation. In a letter to Smith dated March 24, 2022 (Exhibit 15), Liszkay confirmed that cold joints were visible. However, he concluded in his report that there should not be a structural problem with the foundation, and that the “biggest issues” are cosmetic defects and water seepage. Liszkay recommended applying waterproofing to prevent water seeping through the cold joints. Smith testified that Geiger was present when Liszkay inspected the foundation and that she participated in the discussion by speakerphone for approximately five minutes. Smith believed that Liszkay told her and Geiger one thing during the inspection – that the “calcium sped up the process too much” – but reached a different conclusion in his written report. {¶9} Smith conceded that the foundation remained without waterproofing or backfill for 14 months. She testified that she did not waterproof or backfill the foundation for so long because she did not believe the foundation would actually stand. When the foundation was eventually waterproofed, the waterproofing company patched the cracks and cold joints. Smith testified, however, that the cracks continued to worsen. She attributed the deterioration to the alleged presence of calcium in the concrete Sam’s used to pour the walls.  {¶10} At her deposition on February 13, 2024, Smith testified, “I do agree that it is cosmetic defects on all the walls, yes.” At trial, however, she testified that the cracks were now “leaking water” and had steadily grown larger. Smith stated that the cold joints appeared damp and that she observed some water intrusion during the extensive rainfall associated with Hurricane Helene in September of 2024. However, she had not retained an engineer, expert, or anyone else to inspect the property since 2022. {¶11} When asked why she believes there is crack-causing calcium chloride in the concrete, Smith testified that her belief was based on “word of mouth from Ralph Hobson, Jr.,”(“Hobson”) and articles she consulted on the Internet. Smith testified that sometime after December 15, 2021, Hobson, who is a Sam’s employee, called Geiger because the two men were friends. Hobson was on Geiger’s speakerphone, allowing Smith to hear their conversation. According to Smith, Hobson stated that he had been called from another job to Smith’s property on December 15, 2021, “because the concrete had calcium in it, to the point it was setting up too fast and it was unworkable.” Smith also heard another Sam’s employee in the background state, “it’s going to look like shit.” Smith was unsure when the call occurred but believes it may have been approximately three days after the walls were poured on December 15, 2021. She did not remember the time or location of the call. {¶12} Smith subsequently built her home on the foundation poured by Sam’s; however, she did not have to pay anyone else to perform work completed by Sam’s. {¶13} Cline owns Sam’s and has worked with concrete for 30 years. Sam’s pours concrete footers and walls but does not waterproof foundations after pouring them. Cline recommends that clients waterproof their foundations as soon as possible, generally within one week of the concrete pour, otherwise, the foundation may crack or cave-in because of “heaving and freezing.” {¶14} Sam’s provided Estep with two proposals for Smith’s foundation. The first, more extensive proposal included excavation, pouring the foundation footers and walls, backfilling, and completing the flatwork for the garage, basement, and porch. The second proposal excluded several items, including backfilling and the flatwork for the garage, basement, and porch. On Smith’s behalf, Estep selected the second proposal, which totaled $46,424.08. Cline testified that Sam’s completed the work described in the [second] proposal but had not received any payment from Smith. {¶15} Cline was present when Smith’s foundation was initially staked [prior to the pour]. Estep requested the foundation be relocated three times during the staking process. After Estep selected the precise location and contacted Sam’s to schedule the work, Sam’s excavated the basement. Sam’s next poured the foundation2, along with installing upright No. 6 rebar extending into the foundation [footers] every 32 inches to reinforce the basement walls. Although rebar is not required by industry standards, Cline believes it provides clients with the best results. When asked whether compromised rebar would compromise a significant structural component of the wall, Cline responded, “no, not necessarily,” because rebar “is an extra” and is “not required.” {¶16} Cline testified that Sam’s vibrated the concrete walls at Smith’s property to ensure the concrete was uniform[ly distributed]. None of the workers at the Smith job informed Cline of any problems with pouring the footers or walls. When Smith called to complain about the foundation, Cline met with Geiger. Cline testified that he told Geiger in 2 We use the term “foundation” to include footers and basement walls person and Smith by telephone that Sam’s would return to patch the walls once the foundation was waterproofed and “under roof.” However, Smith told Cline he was not permitted to return to her property, so he never had the opportunity to patch the walls. {¶17} During his visit in January of 2022, Cline observed cold joints and honeycombing. He did not believe the foundation was structurally unsound. As he explained, “I have poured enough concrete, and I knew exactly what it was.” Cline contacted James Rosebrock of Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., who is a structural engineer, to inspect Smith’s foundation. Cline testified that Rosebrock’s opinion was consistent with his own: the foundation was structurally sound. {¶18} Cline stated that many of the cracks about which Smith complains were not present when he initially visited the property in January 2022. He observed the cracks when he visited the property with the magistrate and the parties the day before trial. Cline believes the cracks resulted from the delay in waterproofing the foundation and backfilling. {¶19} Cline testified that Sam’s uses a standard concrete mix for walls, a separate mix for footers, and a design mix for flatwork. When asked whether he ever ordered calcium to be added to a concrete mix, Cline responded, “Yes, well, it depends on what kind of concrete we’re pouring, whether it’s a wall or flatwork. Everything is different.” Cline explained that Sam’s uses liquid, non-chloride calcium in its concrete wall-mix because it dissolves quickly in the concrete and is not corrosive to rebar. {¶20} Sam’s orders calcium3 in its concrete mixes from November through April because of weather conditions. Even if the weather is warm on the day of the pour, Cline uses calcium because concrete takes weeks to cure fully, and weather conditions during the 21 days 3 “Calcium” as differentiated from “calcium chloride” following the pour may affect the curing process. The calcium is added to the mix at the concrete plant. {¶21} Sam’s used concrete supplied by Top Cat Concrete for the Smith project. Cline acknowledged that the invoice Sam’s received from Top Cat stated that the wall mix contained “1 percent calcium chloride.” However, Cline disputed that calcium chloride had been used. He did not believe the bill accurately reflected what he ordered or what was used in Smith’s walls. He testified that Sam’s uses only liquid calcium and stated, “I don’t know why [Top Cat] put it on there. That’s not in our wall design … I’d have to look into it to see why they wrote that. We don’t use calcium chloride.” {¶22} Cline also acknowledged that, if there was calcium chloride in the wall mix, there is a chance the chloride could potentially degrade the rebar but testified that structural degradation would take considerable time. He stated, “you know, over 150 years, you could probably have a reaction with metal.” Cline reiterated that Sam’s does not include calcium chloride in its wall mix because doing so is not its practice. {¶23} Cline testified that Top Cat has kept Sam’s concrete mixes on file for years, including separate mixes for walls and footers. From November through April, those mixes contain a base amount of liquid calcium, either 0.5 or 1 percent. Sam’s sometimes orders additional liquid calcium when particularly severe weather is projected. {¶24} Cline described how Sam’s orders concrete and instructs Top Cat to add calcium. Either Cline or the foreman calls Top Cat for each job to place the concrete order and verbally specifies the amount of liquid, non-chloride calcium to include. Thus, Top Cat receives, via telephone call from Sam’s, specific instructions for each project regarding the type and amount of calcium to be used in the concrete. Cline stated that Top Cat knows Sam’s does not use calcium chloride. {¶25} Cline recalled calling Top Cat to place the concrete order for Smith’s foundation. Cline testified that he discussed the type and amount of calcium to include and instructed Top Cat to use non-chloride calcium. Despite the wording on the invoice, “Chloride”, which Cline did not prepare and does not know why it appears as such, he has no reason to believe Top Cat disregarded his instructions. He testified that, if Top Cat used calcium chloride, Smith’s claim should be against Top Cat because that company would have mixed the concrete incorrectly. {¶26} Cline also addressed the cause of the cold joints and honeycombing, which in Cline’s opinion resulted from having to stop the concrete pump to bring in another truck waiting down the road because two concrete trucks could not simultaneously park near Smith’s foundation pour. To remedy the honeycombing and cold joints, Sam’s would apply a patch and stamp the concrete after foundation waterproofing. Cline explained that the cold joints, which he called “pour lines”, resulted from starting and stopping the concrete pump. Cline testified that calcium does not affect the appearance of cold joints or cause honeycombing. {¶27} James Rosebrock was retained by Sam’s to evaluate the structural integrity of Smith’s foundation system on January 27, 2022, at which time Rosebrock observed cold joints and some honeycombing, but he did not recall seeing any other cracks. He testified that the concrete layers in Smith’s foundation had a good bond and that, with the rebar reinforcement in the walls, the foundation system was structurally sound.  {¶28} Rosebrock recommended cement repairs to the honeycombing, if desired. He also recommended waterproofing the foundation to prevent water infiltration, explaining that without waterproofing there was a “possibility of joints opening up.” When asked whether water infiltration could affect the stability of the concrete and degrade the rebar, Rosebrock responded, “from my experience and age of the structure, you’re probably never going to see the effect of it over the lifetime.” Regarding the cold joints, Rosebrock stated that typical waterproofing applications should seal them. In his report (Exhibit 4), Rosebrock likewise concluded that the cold joints and honeycombing did not affect the structural integrity of the foundation system. {¶29} On October 13, 2025, the magistrate issued a decision finding in favor of Sam’s on its unjust enrichment claim and all of Smith’s counterclaims. The magistrate found in favor of Smith on Sam’s claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel. Neither party appealed the magistrate or trial court determinations that no contract existed between the parties. Likewise, neither party challenges the magistrate or trial court conclusions regarding Smith’s breach of express warranty claim and Sam’s promissory estoppel claim. {¶30} Regarding Sam’s unjust enrichment claim, the magistrate found that Smith knew Sam’s was pouring the footers and walls and did not stop Sam’s from performing the work. After Sam’s completed the work, Smith constructed the remainder of her home on top of the foundation. Accordingly, the magistrate found in favor of Sam’s on its unjust enrichment claim. {¶31} The magistrate then considered appropriate damages, as measured by the benefit Smith received from Sam’s work. Smith argued that the alleged use of calcium chloride in the concrete mix rendered the basement worthless and reduced the value of Sam’s work to “less than nothing.” The magistrate rejected that argument, finding that Smith had not stopped Sam’s from performing the work, despite her complaints that the work was not being performed as she wanted. The magistrate further found that Smith had not presented compelling evidence regarding the effects of calcium chloride and that the expert testimony and evidence established that Smith received a structurally sound basement with mere cosmetic defects. {¶32} The magistrate found that the only compelling evidence of value was Cline’s testimony and Sam’s original proposal. Accordingly, the magistrate awarded Sam’s $45,806.42 in damages on its unjust enrichment claim - representing the $46,424.08 proposal, less $617.66 for the gravel from Smith’s property used by Sam’s on the project. {¶33} Regarding Smith’s breach of implied warranty claim, the magistrate found that Smith had not established that she was injured as a direct and proximate result of any of the defects she identified in the basement walls. Although the magistrate acknowledged the existence of cosmetic issues, the magistrate found that Smith had not established any material defects, or the extent, or cost, of the repairs necessary to remedy them. {¶34} Smith filed initial objections to the magistrate’s decision on October 24, 2025, and supplemental objections on November 20, 2025. {¶35} On February 10, 2026, the trial court issued a judgment entry overruling Smith’s objections. {¶36} Smith appeals the February 10, 2026, judgment entry of the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas, and assigns the following as error:  {¶37} “I. The trial court erred in its judgment entry overruling objections to the magistrate’s post-trial decision by finding for plaintiff-appellee on plaintiff-appellee’s unjust enrichment claim and awarding plaintiff-appellee $45,806.42.” {¶38} “II. The trial court erred in its judgment entry overruling objections to the magistrate’s post-trial decision by finding for plaintiff-appellee on defendant-appellant’s counterclaim for breach of implied warranty and determining that defendant-appellant failed to establish a material defect and causation.” Standard of Review {¶39} The magistrate conducted a bench trial in this case. In her assignments of error, Smith argues that the magistrate’s, and, ultimately, the trial court’s determination at trial was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The standard of review for a manifest weight challenge in a civil case is the same standard as applied in criminal cases. Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 17. “A reviewing court is to examine the entire record and determine ‘whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the finder of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered.’” Lambert’s Pop A Top, LLC v. Mills, 2017-Ohio-8073, ¶ 32 (5th Dist.), quoting Eastley at ¶ 20. {¶40} “In weighing the evidence, the court of appeals must always be mindful of the presumption in favor of the finder of fact.” Eastley at ¶ 21. “The underlying rationale of giving deference to the findings of the trial court rests with the knowledge that the trial judge is best able to view the witnesses and observe their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, and use these observations in weighing the credibility of the proffered testimony.” Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80 (1984). If a civil judgment is supported by “some competent, credible evidence support[ing] all the essential elements of the case,” it will not be reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. Huntington Natl. Bank Successor v. Miller, 2016-Ohio-5860, ¶ 13 (10th Dist.), citing C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 280 (1978). {¶41} As an appellate court, we are not fact finders; we neither weigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Markel v. Wright, 2013-Ohio-5274, ¶ 23 (5th Dist.). The fact finder is best able to view the witnesses and observe their demeanor, gestures, and voice inflections, and use these observations in weighing the credibility of the proffered testimony. Id. Accordingly, a trial court may believe all, part, or none of the testimony of any witness who appears before it. Rogers v. Hill, 124 Ohio App.3d 468 (4th Dist. 1998). {¶42} Smith contends that the magistrate’s – and ultimately, the trial judge’s – finding on Sam’s claim for unjust enrichment and Smith’s claim for breach of implied warranty were against the manifest weight of the evidence. I. {¶43} In her first assignment of error, Smith contends that the trial court erred in awarding Sam’s $45,806.42 on its unjust enrichment claim. We disagree. {¶44} The doctrine of unjust enrichment “applies when a benefit is conferred and it would be inequitable to permit the benefitting party to retain the benefit without compensating the conferring party.” Meyer v. Chieffo, 2011-Ohio-1670, ¶ 11 (10th Dist.). The purpose of an unjust enrichment claim “is not to compensate the plaintiff for any loss or damage suffered,” but to allow the plaintiff to recover the benefit he or she conferred on the defendant when it would be unjust for the defendant to retain the benefit. Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 2005-Ohio-4985, ¶ 21. The elements of an unjust enrichment claim are: (1) the plaintiff conferred a benefit on the defendant; (2) the defendant knew of the benefit; and (3) it would be unjust to allow the defendant to retain the benefit without payment to the plaintiff. Robinette v. PNC Bank, N.A., 2016-Ohio-767, ¶ 23 (5th Dist.). {¶45} The damages for unjust enrichment are “the amount the defendant benefited.” Bollman v. Lavery Auto. Sales & Serv., 2019-Ohio-3879, ¶ 28 (5th Dist.). Unjust enrichment entitles a party to only the reasonable value of the benefit conferred. FedEx Corp. Services, Inc. v. Heat Surge, LLC, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 226 (5th Dist.). “A reviewing court ordinarily will uphold a trial court’s damage award if it is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.” Brooks v. RKUK, Inc., 2022-Ohio-266, ¶ 56 (5th Dist.). {¶46} Smith does not dispute that Sam’s conferred a benefit on her or that she knew of the benefit. Instead, she argues that the trial court’s damages award was against the manifest weight of the evidence because $45,806.42 did not represent the reasonable value of the benefit conferred. Specifically, Smith relies on Cline’s testimony that concrete used to pour walls should not contain calcium chloride and that he would never use a wall mix containing calcium chloride. Smith also points to a Top Cat bill indicating that Sam’s was charged for a wall mix containing calcium chloride. According to Smith, this evidence demonstrates that Sam’s delivered a materially defective foundation. {¶47} However, Smith’s argument considers portions of Cline’s testimony in isolation and disregards his other testimony concerning the concrete mix. Despite the language on the Top Cat bill, Cline disputed that calcium chloride was used. He testified that he did not know why Top Cat included that notation on the bill because Sam’s wall mix does not contain calcium chloride. Instead, the mix Sam’s used for years when ordering concrete from Top Cat contained liquid calcium, not calcium chloride.  {¶48} Cline further testified that he neither created nor printed the bill and that the notation on the bill did not reflect how Sam’s orders concrete for individual jobs. According to Cline, he called Top Cat for each job and verbally specified the components of the mix. Cline recalled placing the call for Smith’s foundation and instructing Top Cat to use non- chloride, liquid calcium. Top Cat has never disregarded Cline’s verbal instructions. {¶49} The trier of fact was entitled to consider this testimony when evaluating the significance of the bill from Top Cat. A trier of fact may believe all, part, or none of a witness’s testimony. Rogers v. Hill, 124 Ohio App.3d 468 (4th Dist. 1998). The trial court was therefore entitled to resolve the evidentiary conflicts. We cannot conclude that the trial court clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice merely because the Top Cat bill contained a notation that conflicted with other portions of Cline’s testimony. {¶50} Sam’s does not dispute that cold joints and honeycombing were present after the foundation was poured. However, Cline testified that calcium does not cause cold joints or honeycombing. He believes the honeycombing occurred when a new concrete truck was brought in and that the cold joints, or pour lines, resulted from stopping and restarting the concrete pump. No testimony established that these conditions compromised the structural integrity of the foundation. Liszkay’s report indicated that the foundation had no structural problems and that the cold joints and honeycombing were cosmetic issues. Rosenbrock likewise testified that the foundation was structurally sound. {¶51} Smith testified that she built her home on the foundation poured by Sam’s and did not have to pay another contractor to perform [repair] Sam’s completed work. Thus, despite the acknowledged cosmetic defects, the foundation continued to serve its essential purpose. There was no testimony to establish that the foundation was unusable or likely to become unusable in the near future. See Hansel v. Creative Concrete & Masonry Constr. Co., 2002- Ohio-198 (10th Dist.). {¶52} The record contains competent and credible evidence supporting the trial court’s determination that the reasonable value of the benefit Sam’s conferred on Smith was $45,806.42. Cline testified about the services Sam’s provided, and the exhibit relied on by the trial court documented those services and their costs. {¶53} As to the repairs needed to address the cosmetic defects, Cline testified that he informed Smith, via telephone, and Geiger, in person, that Sam’s would return to patch the walls after Smith waterproofed the foundation, completed the backfilling, and the house was “under roof.” Cline testified that Sam’s would perform those repairs at its own expense, but that Smith would not allow him to return to the property. Smith disputed that Cline offered to patch the walls at his cost but conceded that she told Cline that she did not want anyone from Sam’s back on her property. The trial court could reasonably consider this testimony when assessing the value of the benefit Sam’s provided to Smith. {¶54} Smith also argues that the trial court could not award Sam’s more than $25,000 on its unjust enrichment claim because R.C. Chapter 4722 requires a written contract for home construction services exceeding that amount. However, the record shows that Smith did not raise R.C. Chapter 4722 in her answer or counterclaims, her August 8, 2024, pretrial statement, or her summary judgment pleadings. Nor did she advance that theory at trial. Smith first referred to R.C. Chapter 4722 in her written closing argument, filed after the evidence had closed. “It is axiomatic that cases are to be decided on the issues actually litigated at trial.” State ex rel. Evans v. Bainbridge Twp. Trustees, 5 Ohio St.3d 41, 44 (1983). Smith did not litigate a claim for relief under R.C. Chapter 4722 before or during trial.  {¶55} Moreover, Smith cites no authority establishing that the absence of a written contract precludes a fact-finder from awarding more than $25,000 on an unjust enrichment claim. R.C. 4722.08 permits an owner to pursue a cause of action under that provision in addition to a cause of action under any other legal theory when a home construction service supplier performs home construction services exceeding $25,000 without a written contract. See R.C. 4722.08; A1 Heating & Cooling, Inc. v. Thomas, 2024-Ohio-109, ¶ 8 (5th Dist.); DeFoe v. Schoen Builders, LLC, 2019-Ohio-2255, ¶ 49 (6th Dist.). However, an owner is “not entitled to the relief available under R.C. 4722.02” if “they have not pled a cause of action for a violation of R.C. Chapter 4722.” DeFoe at ¶¶ 49-50. Because Smith did not plead or litigate such a claim, the trial court did not err by failing to apply R.C. Chapter 4722 when determining the amount recoverable on Sam’s unjust enrichment claim. {¶56} We find the trial court’s award of $45,806.42 on Sam’s unjust enrichment claim was supported by competent and credible evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Smith’s first assignment of error is overruled. II. {¶57} In her second assignment of error, Smith argues that the trial court’s judgment in favor of Sam’s on her claim for breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike performance was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree. {¶58} Ohio common law imposes on builders and contractors a duty to perform their work in a workmanlike manner. Morris v. Gedraitis, 2023-Ohio-2317, ¶ 68 (5th Dist.); Jones v. Centex Homes, 2012-Ohio-1001, ¶ 6. To prevail on a claim for failure to perform in a workmanlike manner, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant failed to exercise ordinary care and skill and that the failure proximately caused damages. Morris at ¶ 68; Jones at ¶6. Merely establishing the existence of a defect is insufficient; the plaintiff must also show that the defect resulted from the contractor’s failure to exercise ordinary care. See Jones at ¶ 6. {¶59} A workmanlike manner is measured by how others in the same trade and community customarily perform the same type of work. Day-Glo Color Corp. v. Brewer-Garrett Co., 2007-Ohio-159, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.). {¶60} The magistrate, whose decision the trial court adopted, found that Smith failed to establish proximate causation and damages. Causation {¶61} Smith first argues that the trial court erred in rejecting her claim because Cline testified that calcium chloride should not be used in concrete for foundation walls. She contends that the use of calcium chloride in her walls constituted a material defect and fell below industry standards. However, as discussed above, Smith’s argument focuses on isolated portions of Cline’s testimony and disregards the remainder of his testimony concerning the concrete mix. {¶62} The issue is whether Smith established that Sam’s alleged failure to perform in a workmanlike manner proximately caused injury to the foundation. Smith essentially argues that the presence of calcium chloride in the concrete, by itself, established that the foundation sustained structural damage. The record does not support that conclusion. {¶63} First, the evidence concerning whether the concrete actually contained calcium chloride was disputed. Although the Top Cat bill listed calcium chloride, Cline testified that he specifically instructed Top Cat to use liquid calcium without chloride. He further testified that he did not believe the concrete contained calcium chloride because Sam’s wall mix never had chloride mixed in and Top Cat was aware of that practice.  {¶64} Second, even assuming that the concrete contained calcium chloride, the record did not establish that it caused structural damage to the foundation. Cline testified that he did not use calcium chloride because it could potentially degrade the reinforcing rebar. However, he believed that it would take more than 150 years for calcium chloride to react with the rebar to the point of structurally affecting a foundation. {¶65} Further, even if the evidence established that the concrete contained calcium chloride and that a contractor acting in a workmanlike manner would not have used it, Smith still had to present evidence connecting the alleged departure from industry standards to the specific injury she claims. See Day-Glo, 2007-Ohio-159, ¶ 18. {¶66} The experts who inspected the foundation walls - Cline, Rosebrock, and Liszkay - identified cold joints and honeycombing. However, they all agreed that cold joints and honeycombing are not structural defects and do not render the walls structurally unsound. Liszkay’s report indicated that the foundation had no structural problems, that the identified issues were cosmetic, and that waterproofing would address water seepage. Rosebrock testified that the foundation was structurally sound and that any water infiltration would not affect the stability of the concrete or rebar over the lifetime of the home. Cline likewise testified that the foundation was structurally sound. Finally, Sam’s employee who allegedly spoke by telephone with Geiger did not identify a structural problem caused by calcium chloride. Rather, he reportedly stated that the walls were going to “look like shit.” {¶67} Smith testified that cracks had recently appeared in the walls. She acknowledged, however, that she had not asked anyone to inspect those cracks to determine their cause, assess their effect on the foundation’s structural integrity, or recommend repairs. Cline also testified that he observed cracks during the recent visit by the parties to the home. In his opinion, the cracks resulted from the substantial delay in waterproofing and backfilling the foundation, not from calcium chloride in the concrete. Cline testified that a foundation should be waterproofed within seven days. However, Smith waited more than a year to have the foundation waterproofed and backfilled. Cline believes that, during the delay, the ground froze and the footers heaved. {¶68} Smith’s own testimony further supports the trial court’s determination. She testified that she built her home on the foundation poured by Sam’s. The home has progressed to the point that it includes windows, drywall, appliances, siding, and finish work. This evidence, considered alongside the expert testimony that the foundation remained structurally sound, supports the trial court’s conclusion that Smith failed to establish that Sam’s work proximately caused structural damage. {¶69} As to the cosmetic issues, Cline testified that industry practice is to stamp, patch, and pigment the interior foundation walls after the house is under roof. If necessary, Sam’s would also seal, paint, and stain the walls. Cline testified that he offered to perform the work at Sam’s expense after Smith waterproofed and backfilled the foundation. Although Smith disputed that Cline offered to patch and seal the cracks, she acknowledged telling him that she would not allow anyone from Sam’s to return to the property. Without access to the property, Sam’s could not perform the proposed cosmetic repairs in accordance with industry standards. {¶70} Accordingly, we find that the trial court’s finding that Smith failed to establish proximate causation was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.  Damages {¶71} Smith also argues that the magistrate and trial court erred in finding that she failed to present competent, credible evidence regarding the amount of her damages, including the extent and cost of the repairs necessary to address the conditions about which she complained. Specifically, she relies on her testimony concerning an estimate prepared by Complete Restoration in the amount of $152,150. {¶72} We find the trial court did not commit error in finding that the Complete Restoration estimate was not competent and credible evidence of the extent or costs of the repairs. First, during opening statements, Smith’s counsel acknowledged that the court should not accept the $152,150 estimate as a reasonable solution, stating, “all of us in this room agree that sounds absolutely absurd, to spend $150,000 on cosmetic repairs on this basement. So we don’t expect the Court to accept that as a reasonable solution.” {¶73} The estimate itself, admitted as Exhibit 16, also included work beyond the scope of the work Sam’s had performed, including “custom carved rock features” and “glazing techniques.” Smith likewise testified that the estimate was “very unrealistic and not even really what I was asking for.” In light of this testimony and the contents of the estimate, the trial court reasonably discounted it as evidence of the extent and cost of the necessary repairs. {¶74} We find the trial court’s determination on Smith’s claim for breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike performance was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Smith’s second assignment of error is overruled. {¶75} Based on the foregoing, Smith’s assignments of error are overruled.  {¶76} For the reasons stated in our Opinion, the judgment of the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. {¶77} Costs to Appellant Ashley Smith. By: Popham, P.J., Hoffman, J. and Gormley, J., concur