How long do we have to sue on this contract, and can the clause shorten it?
The answer depends on when the claim accrued, because R.C. 2305.06 has been shortened twice. As the Tenth District set the history out in 2025, the section provided fifteen years before the 2012 amendment, eight years from 28 September 2012, and six years from the 2021 amendment; each version opens with an exception for other named sections, and the current one excepts R.C. 126.301, 1302.98, 1303.16, 1345.10 and 2305.04 (Chaganti). For a claim that accrued before 28 September 2012 the period is the shorter of fifteen years from accrual or eight years from that date. On a sale of goods, R.C. 1302.98(A) as the Ninth District quoted it allows the parties by the original agreement to reduce the period of limitation to not less than one year (HB Martin Logistics).
The trap
A shortening clause only works if it is in the original agreement. In HB Martin Logistics the twelve-month period sat in limited-warranty agreements the seller emailed eighteen days after the purchase agreement was signed, and the court held they were not incorporated by reference, so the twelve-month period 'could not be considered part of the “original agreement” for purposes of reducing the four-year statute of limitations'. The other trap is characterisation: in Greer what the plaintiff called a billing and contract dispute was held to be a legal malpractice claim, which carries the one-year period in R.C. 2305.11(A) instead, because under Ohio law a cause of action is subsumed into a malpractice claim if it arises out of the matter in which the attorney represented the client. Reading the six-year figure off the current section is the mistake this rule exists to stop: a claim on a contract breached in, say, 2010 or 2015 is governed by the arithmetic above and not by six years from accrual. The characterisation point has a second edge as well - it is the actual nature of the dispute, not the form of the pleading, that decides which period applies, and a party cannot transform one cause of action into another through clever pleading to reach a more satisfactory period.
9 authorities
- case2025-Ohio-1747Greer v. ParkOhio Ct. App. 10th Dist.decided 2025
The words that state the rule
Under R.C. 2305.11(A), a claim for legal malpractice “shall be commenced within one year after the cause of action accrued.” A breach of contract claim “shall be brought within six years after the cause of action accrued.” R.C. 2305.06.
- case2023-Ohio-4836HB Martin Logistics, Inc. v. Hissong Group, Inc.Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist.decided 2023
The words that state the rule
the original agreement the parties may reduce the period of limitation to not less than one year * * *.” (Emphasis added.) R.C. 1302.98(A).
- case2025-Ohio-1747Greer v. ParkOhio Ct. App. 10th Dist.decided 2025
The words that state the rule
The trial court correctly noted that, under Ohio law, “a cause of action will be subsumed into a malpractice claim if it arises out of the matter in which the attorney represented the client.” (Internal quotation marks deleted & citation omitted.) (Decision & Entry at 2, quoting Creech v. Gaba, 2017-Ohio-195, ¶ 10 (10th Dist.).)
- case2023-Ohio-4836HB Martin Logistics, Inc. v. Hissong Group, Inc.Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist.decided 2023
The words that state the rule
As a result, the 12-month limitations period contained within the LWAs could not be considered part of the “original agreement” for purposes of reducing the four-year statute of limitations under R.C. 1302.93(A).
- case2025-Ohio-1747Greer v. ParkOhio Ct. App. 10th Dist.decided 2025
The words that state the rule
It is the actual nature of the dispute or subject matter of the case, rather than the form of the pleading, that determines which statute of limitations should apply to a cause of action. Lawyers Coop. Publishing Co. v. Muething, 65 Ohio St.3d 273, 277 (1992). “A party cannot transform one cause of action into another through clever pleading or an alternate theory of law in order to avail itself of a more satisfactory statute of limitations.”
- case2025-Ohio-1982Chaganti v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist.decided 2025
The words that state the rule
In 2010, R.C. 2305.06 provided a 15-year limitations period for commencing a claim upon a written contract: “Except as provided in sections 126.301 and 1302.98 of the Revised Code, an action upon a specialty or an agreement, contract, or promise in writing shall be brought within fifteen years after the cause thereof accrued.” 1992 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 152.
- case2025-Ohio-1982Chaganti v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist.decided 2025
The words that state the rule
The General Assembly amended R.C. 2305.06 in 2012 to reduce the limitations period for commencing a claim upon a written contract from 15 years to 8 years. As amended in 2012, R.C. 2305.06 stated, “Except as provided in sections 126.301 and 1302.98 of the Revised Code, an action upon a specialty or an agreement, contract, or promise in writing shall be brought within eight years after the cause of action accrued.”
- case2025-Ohio-1982Chaganti v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist.decided 2025
The words that state the rule
The General Assembly again amended R.C. 2305.06 in 2021 S.B. 13 (“S.B. 13”) to further reduce the limitations period for commencing a claim upon a written contract from eight years to six years. The 2021 version of R.C. 2305.06 states, “Except as provided in sections 126.301, 1302.98, 1303.16, 1345.10, and 2305.04 of the Revised Code, an action upon a specialty or an agreement, contract, or promise in writing shall be brought within six years after the cause of action accrued.”
- case2025-Ohio-1982Chaganti v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist.decided 2025
The words that state the rule
Uncodified language in Section 4 of S.B. 13 mirrored the language in Section 4 of S.B. 224. It stated that, for causes of action that accrued prior to the effective date of S.B. 13, the limitations period would be the shorter of six years from the effective date of S.B. 13 or the expiration of the limitations period in effect prior to the effective date.
“Defective” means that reading found something to correct. What you are reading is the rule as it stands after that reading.