Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

A tenant and her adult son rented a house in Arlington, Virginia, for a year. Several months into the lease, they noticed water leaking through a skylight and informed the landlord. The landlord and a contractor inspected the skylight and confirmed it was leaking, but no repairs were made. After a period of snow and rain, the tenant slipped on water that had accumulated from the leak, suffering significant injuries. She then sued the landlord, alleging breach of contract for failing to complete repairs as required by the lease and state law, and common-law negligence in failing to take steps to prevent injury from the leak.The landlord removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which treated the landlord’s demurrer as a motion to dismiss. The district court dismissed the negligence claim, finding the complaint did not allege that the landlord or contractor undertook repairs or performed any negligent acts—only that they inspected and confirmed the leak. The court concluded Virginia law does not impose a tort duty on landlords for failing to repair, but only for negligent acts in the course of repair. The breach of contract claim survived the motion to dismiss, but the parties later stipulated to voluntarily dismiss it to allow an immediate appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit first determined it had appellate jurisdiction, accepting the tenant's binding representation that she was abandoning the contract claim with prejudice. The court then affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the negligence claim. It held that, under Virginia law, a landlord is not liable in tort for failing to make repairs unless the landlord undertakes repairs and does so negligently. Because the complaint did not allege any negligent repair or positive act, only nonfeasance, the negligence claim failed as a matter of law. View "Metz v. McCarthy" on Justia Law

A company operating a private detention facility in Colorado under contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was sued in a class action by a former detainee. The lawsuit challenged two of the company’s work policies for detainees: a sanitation policy that required unpaid cleaning under threat of punishment, and a voluntary work program offering minimal pay. Plaintiffs alleged that the sanitation policy violated federal anti-forced-labor laws and that the voluntary work program constituted unjust enrichment under Colorado law.After discovery, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado considered the company’s argument that, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Yearsley v. W. A. Ross Construction Co., it could not be held liable for conduct that the government had lawfully “authorized and directed.” The District Court concluded that the government contract did not instruct the company to adopt the specific work policies at issue and that the company had developed those policies on its own. Therefore, the court held that the Yearsley doctrine did not shield the company from liability and allowed the case to proceed to trial.The company appealed immediately, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that a denial of Yearsley protection is not subject to interlocutory appeal under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Tenth Circuit’s decision, holding that Yearsley provides a merits defense, not an immunity from suit. Therefore, a pretrial order denying Yearsley protection cannot be immediately appealed; any review must wait until after final judgment. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Geo Group, Inc. v. Menocal" on Justia Law

A Montana limited liability company and its sole member obtained a $450,000 loan secured by real property from a lender affiliated with New York-based entities. The loan documents included a promissory note, guaranty, and deed of trust, all referencing the lender as Axos Bank, though the servicing and assignment of the loan eventually resided with the lender’s subsidiaries. The loan imposed a high annual interest rate, and after the company defaulted, the property was sold. The borrower alleges it paid more than twice the loan amount and asserts that the lender’s arrangement with Axos Bank was a scheme to avoid Montana’s usury laws.The borrowers sued in the Montana Eighteenth Judicial District Court, seeking, among other relief, a declaration that the lender—not Axos Bank—was the true lender and subject to Montana usury law. The lender moved to dismiss and compel arbitration under the arbitration provisions in the loan documents. The District Court considered extrinsic evidence, including the borrower’s declaration, and found that the arbitration provisions conflicted with bold, capitalized jury trial waiver language, resulting in ambiguity. The District Court determined that the borrower had not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived its constitutional right of access to the courts, denied the motion to compel arbitration, and the lender appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the District Court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration de novo. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the loan documents were ambiguous due to conflicting provisions regarding dispute resolution, and that such ambiguity prevented the borrower from giving the required knowing, voluntary, and intelligent consent to arbitrate and waive constitutional rights. As a result, the arbitration provisions were held unenforceable, and the District Court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration was affirmed. View "Bluebird v. World Business Lenders" on Justia Law

Four brothers who had previously formed a diamond partnership later entered into an oral agreement in 1995 with a fifth brother to create a separate real estate partnership. The agreement was never reduced to writing, consistent with family custom. Over several years, the brothers jointly acquired and managed a large portfolio of California real estate. Tensions arose after the original real estate owner repaid a loan that was a condition for his partnership interest. One brother, who controlled the partnership’s entities, began excluding the others and denied the existence of any partnership, asserting sole ownership over the assets.The litigation began in 2003 when the excluded brother sued his siblings and related entities for his partnership share and damages. Two other brothers, who initially disclaimed the partnership under alleged economic coercion, later filed cross-complaints for their shares in both the diamond and real estate partnerships. The case saw multiple prior appeals and writ proceedings. After the trial court initially granted summary adjudication against the main plaintiff on most claims, the California Court of Appeal reversed, allowing contract, fiduciary duty, and fraud claims to proceed. Further cross-complaints were filed by the brothers, which survived demurrer on statute of limitations grounds.In 2024, after a lengthy jury trial, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County entered judgment in favor of the three plaintiff brothers, awarding declaratory relief, partnership shares, compensatory and punitive damages, and prejudgment interest totaling about $6.85 billion against the controlling brother and the partnership entities. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, rejected most challenges to the trial court’s evidentiary rulings and instructions, but held the court erred in admitting an undisclosed expert opinion concerning lost investment profits. The appellate court conditionally affirmed the judgment, ordering a reduction of the economic damages awards relating to the real estate partnership by amounts attributable to this opinion, unless the plaintiffs opt for a new trial on those damages and related punitive damages. The judgments were otherwise affirmed. View "Jogani v. Jogani" on Justia Law

The case concerns a life insurance policy that was issued by an insurer to Ewanda Ferguson. After the policy had lapsed for nonpayment, Ewanda applied for reinstatement by submitting an application in which she falsely denied having her driver’s license suspended or being convicted of DUI/DWI in the prior ten years. In reality, Ewanda had two operating-while-impaired convictions and a license revocation within that period. She died in an automobile accident a few months later. The insurer reinstated the policy posthumously and the beneficiary, Elizabeth Ferguson, submitted a claim for the death benefit.Following Ewanda’s death and the submission of the claim, the insurer discovered the misrepresentations in the reinstatement application. Because Ewanda died within the two-year contestability period, the insurer reviewed her application, determined that it would not have reinstated the policy had it known of her true driving history, and rescinded the policy. The insurer then refused to pay the death benefit. Elizabeth Ferguson filed suit in Michigan state court, alleging breach of contract. The insurer removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and counterclaimed to confirm the propriety of rescission. The district court granted summary judgment to the insurer, holding that rescission was proper without balancing the equities, because Ferguson was not an “innocent third party” under Michigan law.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that, under Michigan law, a life insurance beneficiary who is a third-party beneficiary stands in the shoes of the insured and has no greater rights than the insured would have had. Therefore, the insurer was entitled to rescind the policy based on material misrepresentations made by Ewanda, and the district court was not required to balance the equities before ordering rescission. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Ferguson v. MetLife Investors USA Insurance Co." on Justia Law

A developer purchased a building for redevelopment and, after refinancing with a new bank, began negotiating a construction loan. The parties executed a document outlining proposed financing, which included an exclusivity clause requiring the developer to work only with the bank while the bank conducted due diligence. The proposal depended on the developer receiving specific tax credits. When those credits were not awarded, the bank proposed new terms or ending negotiations. The developer then sought financing from other lenders, ultimately securing a loan elsewhere, which led the bank to sue for breach of contract (based on the exclusivity clause) and for fraud.The Iowa District Court for Scott County granted summary judgment for the developer on the breach of contract claim, finding the proposal to be an unenforceable agreement to agree or, alternatively, discharged by the failed condition precedent (the tax credits). The court also excluded the financing proposal from trial on the fraud claim, concerned the jury would confuse it with a binding contract. The jury returned a verdict for the developer on the fraud claim. The Iowa Court of Appeals reversed, finding the exclusivity clause enforceable and the exclusion of the proposal at trial improper.The Supreme Court of Iowa granted further review. It held that while the exclusivity clause was severable and otherwise definite enough to be independently enforceable, the developer’s duty under that clause was discharged when the required tax credits were not obtained and the original deal was abandoned. Thus, there was no breach. The Supreme Court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the proposal from the fraud trial, as its admission risked unfair prejudice without preventing the bank from presenting its case. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ decision and affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Northwest Bank & Trust Company v. Pershing Hill Lofts, LLC" on Justia Law

Mark Weaver, the owner of a commercial property in Gadsden, entered into a ten-year lease with Frios Gourmet Pops, LLC, managed by Andy Harp, in 2016. The lease required monthly rent payments of $4,800, with Harp as a personal guarantor. The lease contained specific provisions addressing default, termination, and the parties’ obligations in the event of breach. In 2018, Harp assigned the lease to Frios Manufacturing, LLC, involving Kevin Harper as a new guarantor. After the original business moved out of the property in early 2019, Harp attempted to find new tenants and eventually established Gardens on Air, LLC on the premises. However, this venture ended in July 2019, and by early 2020, the Frios defendants stopped paying rent. Weaver subsequently terminated their right of possession and reentered the property, later reletting it at a lower rent and ultimately selling it.The Etowah Circuit Court first denied Weaver’s request for summary judgment and instead partially granted summary judgment to the Frios defendants, concluding that Weaver’s recovery was limited to the rent accrued before the termination of tenancy. The trial court excluded evidence of damages beyond that amount and, after a bench trial, awarded Weaver damages limited to unpaid rent, interest, and attorney’s fees up to the time of termination. Weaver’s postjudgment motion was denied by operation of law, and he appealed.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case de novo, holding that the lease provisions allowed for posttermination damages, including the difference between reserved rent and rent received from reletting, and reasonable costs incurred due to breach. The Court found that the trial court erred in limiting Weaver’s recovery to accrued rent only and excluding evidence of further damages. The judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. View "Weaver v. Frios Gourmet Pops, LLC" on Justia Law

A resident of a retirement community, who has celiac disease and relies on a gluten free diet, experienced multiple episodes of illness after consuming meals labeled as gluten free at the facility. She signed a residential contract based on assurances that her dietary needs would be accommodated. Over several years, she reported incidents of illness to staff, including a crab cake in 2018, a stuffed tomato in 2020, and chicken marsala in 2021, all purportedly gluten free. The facility made various adjustments in response to her complaints, including menu changes, staff training, and kitchen modifications. She continued to use her meal plan but gave away the food. In 2023, she filed suit alleging violations of federal disability rights statutes and several state-law claims.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted summary judgment to the retirement community on all claims. The court found her federal claims untimely and denied her request for injunctive relief, concluding she lacked standing. It also rejected her state-law breach of contract and negligence claims, holding they were barred by the statute of limitations and unsupported by evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment as to the federal claims, holding that the plaintiff lacked standing for injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act and that her Fair Housing Act and Rehabilitation Act claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. It also affirmed dismissal of state-law claims related to the 2018 incident. However, the court vacated summary judgment as to her breach of contract and negligence claims arising from the January 2021 chicken marsala incident, finding genuine issues of material fact that should be resolved by a jury. The case was remanded for further proceedings on those claims. View "McGinn v. Broadmead, Inc." on Justia Law

A steel subcontractor was hired to perform work for a university construction project and entered into a subcontract with the general contractor. The general contractor began defaulting on payments, prompting the subcontractor to notify the surety insurance company, which had issued a payment bond guaranteeing payment for labor, materials, and equipment. The surety made partial payment but disputed the remaining amount. The subcontractor then demanded arbitration against the contractor, with the surety notified and invited to participate. The contractor filed for bankruptcy and did not defend in arbitration, nor did the surety participate. The arbitrator awarded the subcontractor damages, including attorneys’ fees and interest, and the award was confirmed in court. The subcontractor sought to enforce the arbitration award against the surety, including attorneys’ fees and prejudgment interest, and also brought a bad faith claim under Pennsylvania’s insurance statute.The Centre County Court of Common Pleas initially excluded evidence of the arbitration award against the surety at trial and ruled the surety was not liable for attorneys’ fees or bad faith damages. A jury found for the subcontractor on the underlying debt, and the court awarded prejudgment interest at the statutory rate. Both parties appealed. The Superior Court held the arbitration award was binding and conclusive against the surety, who had notice and opportunity to participate, and affirmed liability for attorneys’ fees related to pursuing the contractor in arbitration. The court rejected the bad faith claim, holding the statute did not apply to surety bonds, and confirmed the statutory interest rate.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed in all respects. It held that Pennsylvania’s insurance bad faith statute does not apply to surety bonds, based on statutory language. The court also held that the surety is bound by the arbitration award against its principal, and is liable for attorneys’ fees incurred in arbitration and prejudgment interest at the statutory rate. View "Eastern Steel v. Int Fidelity Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The appellant in this case was a member of two limited liability companies, holding approximately a 33% interest. After disputes arose concerning the operation of the LLCs, the appellant initiated litigation seeking dissolution and other relief. Subsequently, he was expelled as a member. The LLCs’ operating agreement required immediate compensation for expelled members’ interests, but the appellant was not paid. While the case was ongoing, the district court enjoined the LLCs from harming the appellant’s interests and appointed a special master to value those interests. Despite the injunction, the appellant’s membership interests were assigned and sold to a third party without his knowledge. The appellant amended his complaint to assert conversion and defamation claims.A jury in the District Court of Park County found for the appellant, awarding $1,784,640 for conversion and $75,000 for defamation per se. Defendants moved post-judgment under Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure 50(b), 59, and 60, arguing the conversion damages should not exceed the special master’s valuation and that defamation damages lacked evidentiary support. The district court initially denied the Rule 50(b) motion, affirming the jury’s findings. Later, under Rule 60(b), the court reduced conversion damages to $293,017 (the special master’s value) and defamation damages to $500, citing the appellant’s rightful expulsion and lack of proof of reputational harm or economic loss.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the district court’s reductions. It held that the appellant retained a property interest in the LLCs after expulsion until compensated, and the jury’s conversion award was proper based on fair market value at the time of conversion. For defamation per se, the Court clarified that Wyoming law allows presumed damages above nominal amounts, and sufficient evidence supported the jury’s $75,000 award. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s reductions and reinstated the original jury awards. View "Mccall v. Best of the West Productions, LLC" on Justia Law