Ohio House Bill HB605

Ohio 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Filed/Introduced: 8/6/26
• Introduced: 11/18/25

Caption

To enact section 4113.63 of the Revised Code to codify the Spearin doctrine in public construction contracts.

Summary

HB605 would add a new section to the Ohio Revised Code to codify the Spearin doctrine for public construction contracts. Under the bill, when an owner provides plans and specifications for a construction project, the owner—or the preparer of those plans—would be deemed to give an implied warranty that the plans are accurate, complete, free from defects, and sufficient to complete the project successfully and on time. The bill also limits liability for contractors and subcontractors when they follow the owner’s plans and specifications and damages result from defects in those plans rather than from the work itself. To avoid liability, the contractor’s reliance on the plans must be reasonable, and the bill defines when reliance is not reasonable, such as when the plans are obviously inadequate, a reasonable site inspection would have revealed the problem, or the contractor did not act in good faith. It further states that certain contract clauses requiring site visits or shifting responsibility to the contractor do not eliminate the implied warranty, and any post-effective-date contract term that conflicts with the new section would be void as against public policy.

Impact

HB605 would change Ohio law by creating an express statutory rule governing risk allocation in public construction projects. It would protect contractors and subcontractors from damages caused by defective owner-provided plans and specifications, while placing responsibility on owners or plan preparers for design deficiencies. The bill would also limit the enforceability of contract language that attempts to waive or override these protections, affecting public owners, design professionals, contractors, and subcontractors involved in state and local construction contracts.

Sentiment

Because the bill was only introduced and no committee votes or transcripts are available, there is no recorded floor or committee sentiment to measure. The bill’s framing suggests a pro-contractor, pro-fairness approach aimed at clarifying liability in public construction, and the title indicates an intent to codify an existing legal doctrine rather than create a wholly new policy. In the absence of recorded debate, the available context points to a technical construction-law measure with likely support from industry stakeholders who favor clearer allocation of design risk.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely to be who should bear the risk of defective plans in public projects: owners and design professionals, or contractors and subcontractors who build from those plans. The bill expressly prevents contract clauses from shifting that risk back onto contractors in ways that conflict with the statute, which could concern public owners seeking broader contractual control. Another possible issue is the bill’s reasonableness standard, including whether a contractor should have discovered defects through site inspection or whether reliance on the plans was truly justified, since those questions could affect litigation and project disputes.