# Metz v. American Electric Power Co.

> Ohio Court of Appeals · July 10, 2007 · 172 Ohio App. 3d 800

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3768966

## Case

- **Full name:** METZ Et Al., Appellant, v. AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER CO., INC. Et Al., Appellees; Metz Et Al., Appellees, v. American Electric Power Co., Inc.; Sestak Et Al., Appellants
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** July 10, 2007
- **Citations:** 172 Ohio App. 3d 800; 2007 Ohio 3520; 877 N.E.2d 316
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Brown
- **Judges:** Tyack, Bryant, Brown
- **Cited by:** 19 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3768966

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that, in the absence of fraud or bad faith, unjust enrichment is an alternative claim that is available only when there is no valid, controlling contract between the parties

## Opinion text

Brown, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
{¶ 87} I write separately to emphasize a few points with regard to appellant Metz’s breach-of-contract claim raised in the second assignment of error. I agree with the lead opinion that the letter to Metz from AEP, dated November 8, 2002, was a retention offer that contained inferior terms to his then current employment agreement. The letter itself creates a genuine issue of material fact
*822
whether AEP expressly repudiated its obligations under Metz’s employment agreement in effect through March 2003. Although Metz resigned from AEP on January 31, 2003, it is reasonable to infer that Metz never officially rejected the retention offer because of his concern that AEP woúld either fail to exercise good faith in matters pertaining to him that were discretionary or would simply terminate him. There is a question of fact whether AEP acted in good faith, generally, in connection with Metz’s employment agreement and corresponding retention offer.
Thomas v. Am. Elec. Power Co., Inc.,
Franklin App. No. 03AP-1192, 2005-Ohio-1958 , 2005 WL 977057 . For those reasons, I agree with the lead opinion that Metz’s breach-of-contract claim survives summary judgment. Accordingly, I concur with the lead opinion in sustaining appellant’s second assignment of error.
{¶ 88} As to the first and third assignments of error, I agree with the conclusion reached by Judge Bryant that these must be overruled.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3768966. Public record. Not legal advice.