Racano v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.

Ohio Court of Claims

Racano v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.

2025 Ohio 3236

CourtOhio Court of Claims

DecidedAugust 27, 2025

Docket2025-00478AD

StatusPublished

This text of 2025 Ohio 3236 (Racano v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Racano v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2025 Ohio 3236 (Ohio Super. Ct. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

[Cite as Racano v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2025-Ohio-3236.]

IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

COLLEEN M. RACANO Case No. 2025-00478AD

Plaintiff Deputy Clerk Holly True Shaver

v. MEMORANDUM DECISION

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Defendant

{¶1} Colleen Racano (“plaintiff”) filed this claim against defendant, Ohio Department of Transportation (“ODOT”), to recover damages which occurred when plaintiff’s vehicle struck a pothole on April 27, 2025, while plaintiff was traveling on Interstate Route 77 in Summit County. This road is a public road maintained by ODOT. Plaintiff seeks $1,337.48 in vehicle damage, $277.80 for a rental car through Hertz, and $42.00 for an Uber ride. Plaintiff maintains a collision deductible of $500.00. Plaintiff submitted the $25.00 filing fee. {¶2} ODOT filed an investigation report stating its willingness to settle this claim for the amount of plaintiff’s deductible - $500.00. {¶3} R.C. 2743.02(D) states in pertinent part: “Recoveries against the state shall be reduced by the aggregate of insurance proceeds, disability award, or other collateral recovery that the claimant receives or is entitled to.” Additionally, this court has found car rental expenses to be a compensable expense. Evanoski v. ODOT, 2009-Ohio-7094 (Ct. of Cl.). Furthermore, this court has found that the costs for rideshares are compensable when they would not have been incurred but for the negligence of defendant. Snyder v. ODOT, 2018-Ohio-5500, ¶ 7 (Ct. of Cl.). {¶4} Plaintiff filed a response to defendant’s investigation report stating that her insurance company denied her claim. The information plaintiff provided shows that plaintiff’s insurance company was unwilling to cover plaintiff’s alleged damages because Case No. 2025-00478AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION

after their review of plaintiff’s claim, they determined that only one tire needed to be replaced, and its cost was less than plaintiff’s $500.00 deductible. {¶5} Upon review, the court determines that the three (3) undamaged tires are not recoverable as the documentation provided from the dealership shows that plaintiff chose to replace all tires as plaintiff was not happy with the runflat tires that were on the vehicle, not because they were damaged in this incident. Accordingly, the court determines that plaintiff is entitled to recover $476.83, which includes the cost of one (1) tire ($219.99), the alignment ($189.95), and ¼ of the labor and incidental costs incurred ($66.89), plus the $277.80 paid for the rental car through Hertz. {¶6} However, the court determines that plaintiff is not entitled to recover the cost of the rideshare. Although this type of expense is typically recoverable, plaintiff noted in her response to the court’s August 8, 2025 entry that the cost of the Uber was included in plaintiff’s car roadside assistance. {¶7} Therefore, judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $754.63, plus $25.00 for reimbursement of the filing fee pursuant to the holding in Bailey v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 62 Ohio Misc.2d 19 (Ct. of Cl. 1990).

v. ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

{¶8} Having considered all the evidence in the claim file, and for the reasons set forth in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in Case No. 2025-00478AD -3- MEMORANDUM DECISION

favor of plaintiff in the amount of $779.63, which includes reimbursement of the $25.00 filing fee. Court costs are assessed against defendant.

HOLLY TRUE SHAVER Deputy Clerk

Filed 8/27/25 Sent to S.C. Reporter 9/9/25

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[Cite as Racano v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2025-Ohio-3236.]

IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

COLLEEN M. RACANO Case No. 2025-00478AD

Plaintiff Deputy Clerk Holly True Shaver

v. MEMORANDUM DECISION

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Defendant

{¶1} Colleen Racano (“plaintiff”) filed this claim against defendant, Ohio Department of Transportation (“ODOT”), to recover damages which occurred when plaintiff’s vehicle struck a pothole on April 27, 2025, while plaintiff was traveling on Interstate Route 77 in Summit County. This road is a public road maintained by ODOT. Plaintiff seeks $1,337.48 in vehicle damage, $277.80 for a rental car through Hertz, and $42.00 for an Uber ride. Plaintiff maintains a collision deductible of $500.00. Plaintiff submitted the $25.00 filing fee. {¶2} ODOT filed an investigation report stating its willingness to settle this claim for the amount of plaintiff’s deductible - $500.00. {¶3} R.C. 2743.02(D) states in pertinent part: “Recoveries against the state shall be reduced by the aggregate of insurance proceeds, disability award, or other collateral recovery that the claimant receives or is entitled to.” Additionally, this court has found car rental expenses to be a compensable expense. Evanoski v. ODOT, 2009-Ohio-7094 (Ct. of Cl.). Furthermore, this court has found that the costs for rideshares are compensable when they would not have been incurred but for the negligence of defendant. Snyder v. ODOT, 2018-Ohio-5500, ¶ 7 (Ct. of Cl.). {¶4} Plaintiff filed a response to defendant’s investigation report stating that her insurance company denied her claim. The information plaintiff provided shows that plaintiff’s insurance company was unwilling to cover plaintiff’s alleged damages because Case No. 2025-00478AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION

after their review of plaintiff’s claim, they determined that only one tire needed to be replaced, and its cost was less than plaintiff’s $500.00 deductible. {¶5} Upon review, the court determines that the three (3) undamaged tires are not recoverable as the documentation provided from the dealership shows that plaintiff chose to replace all tires as plaintiff was not happy with the runflat tires that were on the vehicle, not because they were damaged in this incident. Accordingly, the court determines that plaintiff is entitled to recover $476.83, which includes the cost of one (1) tire ($219.99), the alignment ($189.95), and ¼ of the labor and incidental costs incurred ($66.89), plus the $277.80 paid for the rental car through Hertz. {¶6} However, the court determines that plaintiff is not entitled to recover the cost of the rideshare. Although this type of expense is typically recoverable, plaintiff noted in her response to the court’s August 8, 2025 entry that the cost of the Uber was included in plaintiff’s car roadside assistance. {¶7} Therefore, judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $754.63, plus $25.00 for reimbursement of the filing fee pursuant to the holding in Bailey v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 62 Ohio Misc.2d 19 (Ct. of Cl. 1990).

v. ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

{¶8} Having considered all the evidence in the claim file, and for the reasons set forth in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in Case No. 2025-00478AD -3- MEMORANDUM DECISION

favor of plaintiff in the amount of $779.63, which includes reimbursement of the $25.00 filing fee. Court costs are assessed against defendant.

HOLLY TRUE SHAVER Deputy Clerk

Filed 8/27/25 Sent to S.C. Reporter 9/9/25

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2025 Ohio 3236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/racano-v-ohio-dept-of-transp-ohioctcl-2025.