A recent appellate court decision has reopened questions about how much compensation is owed after a commercial truck was stolen and damaged while left for repairs at a local facility. The ruling could affect how businesses recover losses when property is entrusted to another party and then lost or damaged.
On April 30, 2025, Mahadev Logistics LLC filed a complaint in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas against Columbus Truck & Equipment Centers LLC. The filing alleged negligence in connection with the bailment of a 2015 Volvo truck that was brought to the defendant’s repair facility on or about November 8, 2024. According to the complaint, Mahadev Logistics learned on November 12, 2024 that the truck had been stolen from the facility. Three months later, police located the vehicle and had it towed to a third-party storage site where it remained as of the time of filing, accruing daily storage charges.
The plaintiff claimed that as a result of these events, they were deprived of use of their truck since November 8, 2024. They attached documentation including an estimate for original repairs totaling $10,952.06 and a preliminary investigation report from Columbus Police Department. After being served with the complaint on May 7, 2025 (with some dispute over whether service occurred on May 4 or May 7), Columbus Truck & Equipment Centers did not respond or file an answer. On September 17, 2025, Mahadev Logistics moved for default judgment and submitted an affidavit from Verinder Dhaliwal supporting damages totaling $115,451.48. This amount included $3,227.80 for towing and storage costs; $9,767.52 for missing parts; $12,400 for additional repairs; $56.16 for replacement keys; and $90,000 in alleged lost profit due to six months’ non-use.
On September 22, 2025, the trial court granted default judgment in favor of Mahadev Logistics but awarded only $1,447.94 in damages—an amount calculated by subtracting the estimated cost of original repairs ($10,952.06) from post-theft repair costs ($12,400). The court found that other requested amounts such as towing expenses and lost profits were not available as remedies because they were not directly related to changes in the value of the truck itself.
Mahadev Logistics appealed this decision on two grounds: first arguing that damages were miscalculated by not including all repair costs incurred after theft; second contending that towing expenses and lost income should have been awarded as well.
In its opinion dated April 20, 2026 (Case No. 25 CAE 10 0092), the Fifth Appellate District Court agreed in part with Mahadev Logistics regarding calculation of damages: “We cannot determine whether the damage award ‘reasonably compensates’ Appellant ‘for the injury sustained.’” The court noted there was insufficient evidence to distinguish between costs required before versus after theft—including which parts needed replacement due to theft versus original disrepair—and therefore reversed this portion of the trial court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings.
The appellate judges also addressed claims for towing expenses and lost profits separately. They found that actual towing costs could be recoverable as incidental damages resulting from breach of bailment contract but stated storage fees are only recoverable up until notification that the vehicle was recovered by police—not beyond that point when benefit shifted back to Mahadev Logistics: “Appellant is entitled to compensation for storage fees which accrued up until…notified [the] truck had been recovered.”
Regarding lost profits or loss-of-use claims—such as seeking $90,000 for six months’ non-use—the appellate panel ruled these were too speculative without more concrete evidence: “A plaintiff must demonstrate existence of lost profits with reasonable certainty.” The opinion noted no evidence was presented showing rental costs or substitute equipment used during downtime.
The appellate court affirmed part of the lower court’s ruling but reversed other portions relating to calculation of damages and entitlement to certain incidental expenses—remanding those issues back for further hearings consistent with their findings.
Attorneys listed in this case include Sanjay K. Bhatt (Bhatt Law Office Ltd.) representing Mahadev Logistics LLC and Christina L. Corl (Plunkett Cooney) representing Columbus Truck & Equipment Centers LLC. Judges Andrew J. King; William B. Hoffman; and David M. Gormley presided over this appeal under Case No. 25 CAE 10 0092.
