Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Technical Security Integration, Inc. ("Technical Security") and EPI Technologies, Inc. ("EPI") entered into a Sales Representative Agreement in which EPI agreed to sell Technical Security's products in exchange for commissions. The agreement included a clause requiring disputes to be submitted to mediation, and if mediation failed within 180 days, the prevailing party in any subsequent litigation would be entitled to attorneys' fees. A dispute arose, and EPI demanded mediation, but Technical Security did not respond promptly. EPI then sued Technical Security in state court, where it mostly lost. Technical Security sought attorneys' fees in federal court, which the district court denied, ordering each party to pay its own fees.The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, granted partial summary judgment for Technical Security on the commissions dispute. EPI's remaining claims were dismissed, and the state court denied Technical Security's motion for attorneys' fees, citing a factual dispute. Technical Security then demanded mediation to resolve the fee dispute, but EPI did not respond. Technical Security subsequently sued EPI in the Northern District of Illinois, seeking fees and costs from the state court litigation. The district court granted summary judgment for EPI, concluding that Technical Security had delayed the mediation process.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the agreement did not specify a timeline for mediation demands or responses, creating ambiguity. The court held that the district court erred in faulting Technical Security for preventing mediation without considering whether EPI's actions were reasonable. The Seventh Circuit vacated the district court's summary judgment for EPI and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the reasonableness of each party's conduct regarding the mediation timeline. View "Technical Security Integration, Inc. v EPI Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, ParaFi Digital Opportunities LP, Framework Ventures, L.P., and 1kx LP, invested in Curve, a decentralized cryptocurrency trading platform developed by Mikhail Egorov. They allege that Egorov fraudulently induced them to invest by making false promises about their stake in Curve and then canceled their investment, leading to claims of fraud, conversion, and statutory violations. Egorov, who developed Curve while living in Washington and later moved to Switzerland, formed Swiss Stake GmbH to manage Curve. The investment agreements included Swiss law and forum selection clauses.The San Francisco County Superior Court granted Egorov’s motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that Egorov did not purposefully avail himself of California’s benefits. The court noted that the plaintiffs initiated contact and negotiations, and the agreements specified Swiss jurisdiction. The court also denied plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional discovery, concluding that plaintiffs did not demonstrate that discovery would likely produce evidence establishing jurisdiction.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, affirmed the lower court’s decision. The appellate court agreed that Egorov’s contacts with California were insufficient to establish specific jurisdiction, as the plaintiffs had solicited the investment and Egorov had not directed any activities toward California. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs’ unilateral actions could not establish jurisdiction and that the agreements’ Swiss law and forum selection clauses further supported the lack of jurisdiction. The court also upheld the denial of jurisdictional discovery, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court. View "ParaFi Digital Opportunities v. Egorov" on Justia Law

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company ("Liberty") and Atain Specialty Insurance Company ("Atain") were involved in a contract dispute. Liberty sued Atain for breach of contract after Atain refused to indemnify Liberty for a $1 million appeal bond related to a racial discrimination case against McClure Hotel. Atain argued that it was not obligated to indemnify Liberty based on equitable estoppel, claiming it relied on Liberty's misrepresentation that the bond was closed.The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of Liberty, rejecting Atain's equitable estoppel defense. The court found that Liberty had not misrepresented the status of the appeal bond to Atain.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit held that even if Liberty had made a misrepresentation, Atain could not demonstrate detrimental reliance because it had access to all necessary information to understand its obligations under the indemnity agreement. Atain, as a sophisticated party, should have known that the appeal bond remained in effect until the judgment in the underlying action was satisfied, regardless of the outcome of the separate coverage action. Therefore, Atain's equitable estoppel defense failed, and the grant of summary judgment to Liberty was affirmed. View "Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Atain Specialty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Innovative Waste Management (IWM) entered into a joint venture with Dunhill Products in 2009 and 2010, which led to allegations of breach of contract, fraud, and misappropriation of trade secrets. IWM accused Dunhill Products, Crest Energy Partners, and Henry Wuertz of stealing trade secrets, interfering with business relationships, and theft of petroleum products. IWM sought $12 million in economic damages and punitive damages. The defendants responded with affirmative defenses and counterclaims. IWM served discovery requests in 2012, but the defendants failed to comply, leading to multiple motions to compel and sanctions.The Circuit Court of Dorchester County found the defendants in contempt for violating discovery orders and sanctioned them by striking their answer and counterclaims. The defendants appealed to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, which affirmed the circuit court's decision in an unpublished opinion. The defendants then sought review by the South Carolina Supreme Court.The South Carolina Supreme Court reviewed whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the defendants waived review of the trial court's interlocutory discovery orders and whether the circuit court abused its discretion by striking the defendants' pleadings. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals, holding that the defendants waived their right to review the discovery orders by not complying with them and that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in striking the pleadings due to the defendants' deliberate pattern of discovery abuse. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. View "Innovative Waste Management, Inc. v. Crest Energy Partners GP, LLC" on Justia Law

Bellin Memorial Hospital hired Kinsey & Kinsey, Inc. to upgrade its computer software. Kinsey failed to implement the agreed-upon software, leading Bellin to sue Kinsey in Wisconsin state court for breach of contract and other claims. Bellin also sued Kinsey’s president and a senior product consultant. Kinsey’s insurer, Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, provided a defense under a professional liability insurance policy. During the trial, Bellin and Philadelphia Indemnity entered into a partial settlement, resolving some claims and specifying the conditions under which Bellin could collect damages from Kinsey. Bellin prevailed at trial and was awarded damages.The Wisconsin circuit court ruled that the limited liability provision in the Agreement did not apply due to Kinsey’s material breach. The court granted a directed verdict on the breach of contract claim against Kinsey, leaving the question of damages to the jury. The jury awarded Bellin $1.39 million, later reduced to $750,000 plus costs. The jury found Kinsey and its president not liable for intentional misrepresentation and misleading representation.Philadelphia Indemnity filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, seeking a declaration that the state court’s judgment was covered by the insurance policy and that the $1 million settlement offset the $750,000 judgment. The district court ruled for Bellin, concluding that the state court judgment was not covered by the insurance policy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the insurance policy covered only negligent acts, errors, or omissions, and the state court’s judgment was based on a breach of contract, not negligence. Therefore, the $1 million set-off provision did not apply, and Bellin could recover the full amount of the judgment. View "Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v Kinsey & Kinsey, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2007, the Hobish Irrevocable Trust purchased a universal life insurance policy from AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company to insure Toby Hobish. The policy provided a $2 million death benefit and allowed flexible premium payments into a Policy Account, from which monthly cost of insurance (COI) charges were deducted. In 2015, AXA announced an increase in COI charges for certain policies, including the Trust's, leading to a significant rise in the monthly COI charge. The Trust surrendered the policy in 2016, receiving the remaining account balance minus a surrender fee.The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court, alleging breach of contract and violation of General Business Law § 349. They claimed the COI rate increase was not equitable to all policyholders of a given class and that AXA had misled elderly consumers about the likelihood of such increases. The Supreme Court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment on liability, finding the term "a given class" ambiguous and requiring further examination of extrinsic evidence. The court also dismissed several of plaintiffs' damages theories, including claims for the full value of the death benefit and restitutionary damages.The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's rulings, agreeing that the term "a given class" was ambiguous and that the extrinsic evidence did not resolve this ambiguity. The court also upheld the dismissal of plaintiffs' damages claims, including compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages, and limited punitive damages under General Business Law § 349 to three times the actual damages.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, agreeing that the term "a given class" was ambiguous and that the extrinsic evidence did not resolve this ambiguity. The court also upheld the dismissal of plaintiffs' damages claims and confirmed that punitive damages under General Business Law § 349 are limited to the statutory treble damages. View "Hobish v AXA Equit. Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between partners in a limited partnership formed to develop and operate an affordable housing project in Boston. The financing and structure of the project were driven by the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, which incentivizes private investment in affordable housing through tax credits. The partnership agreement included a right of first refusal (ROR) for the nonprofit general partner to purchase the property at a below-market price after the compliance period.In the Superior Court, the judge ruled on cross motions for summary judgment, concluding that the investor limited partner, AMTAX, did not have a consent right over a sale to the nonprofit general partner under the ROR agreement. However, the judge also ruled that the purchase price under the ROR agreement must include the limited partners' exit tax liability. The judge dismissed the remaining claims and counterclaims due to lack of evidentiary support or as a consequence of these rulings.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that AMTAX's consent was not required for the preliminary steps leading to a sale under the ROR agreement. The court also held that the limited partners' exit taxes were "attributable to" the sale of the property and must be included in the purchase price. The court found that the notice of consent rights recorded by AMTAX was accurate and did not constitute slander of title or tortious interference. Consequently, the plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference, slander of title, and violation of G. L. c. 93A were dismissed. The judgment was affirmed. View "Tenants' Development Corporation v. Amtax Holdings 227, LLC" on Justia Law

Mark Nelson, operating North Country Weatherization Technologies, provided ice removal services to Pine View First Addition Association, a Minnesota non-profit homeowners' association, in spring 2023. Pine View's property manager, a North Dakota LLC, contacted Nelson for urgent ice removal due to water damage. Nelson completed the work and invoiced Pine View, but payment was delayed, allegedly due to Pine View's attempt to have insurance cover the costs. Nelson filed a lawsuit in North Dakota for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, seeking $79,695 plus interest and attorney’s fees.The District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, granted Pine View's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that North Dakota did not have jurisdiction over Pine View, as it is a Minnesota entity and the services were performed in Minnesota. The court also denied Pine View's motion for Rule 11 sanctions against Nelson and his attorney, as well as Nelson's request for prevailing party attorney’s fees.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Supreme Court held that North Dakota has specific personal jurisdiction over Pine View because Pine View, through its North Dakota-based property manager, initiated contact with Nelson for the ice removal services. The court found that Pine View's contacts with North Dakota were sufficient to satisfy the state's long-arm provision and due process requirements. The Supreme Court also determined that the district court abused its discretion in denying Nelson's request for prevailing party attorney’s fees under Rule 11(c)(2), as Pine View's motion for sanctions against Nelson violated Rule 11(c)(5)(A). The case was remanded for further proceedings and to determine the amount of attorney’s fees Nelson is owed. View "Nelson v. Pine View First Addition Association" on Justia Law

Christopher Meek purchased a universal life insurance policy from Kansas City Life Insurance Company, which combined a standard life insurance policy with a savings account. Meek alleged that Kansas City Life improperly included profits and expenses in the cost of insurance, which was not mentioned in the policy, leading to a lower cash value in his account. Meek filed a federal lawsuit for breach of contract and conversion, and the district court certified a class of about 6,000 Kansans with Meek as the lead plaintiff.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri found that Meek's lawsuit was timely for payments going back five years under Kansas’s statute of limitations. The court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Meek on the breach-of-contract claim, interpreting the policy against Kansas City Life. The conversion claim was dismissed. A jury awarded over $5 million in damages, which was reduced to $908,075 due to the statute of limitations. Both parties appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s class certification, finding that common questions of law and fact predominated. The court also upheld the application of Kansas law for both the conversion claim and the statute of limitations. The court agreed with the district court’s interpretation of the insurance policy, concluding that the cost of insurance should not include profits and expenses. The court found that the jury’s damages award was supported by reasonable evidence and did not warrant an increase.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, including the class certification, the application of Kansas law, the partial summary judgment in favor of Meek, and the damages award. View "Meek v. Kansas City Life Ins. Company" on Justia Law

Christopher Meek purchased a universal life insurance policy from Kansas City Life Insurance Company, which combined a standard life insurance policy with a savings account. Meek alleged that Kansas City Life improperly included profits and expenses in the cost of insurance, which was not mentioned in the policy, leading to a lower cash value in his account. Meek filed a federal lawsuit for breach of contract and conversion, and the district court certified a class of about 6,000 Kansans with Meek as the lead plaintiff.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri found that Meek's lawsuit was timely under Kansas’s five-year statute of limitations for breach-of-contract claims. The court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Meek on the breach-of-contract claim, concluding that the policy's cost-of-insurance provision was ambiguous and should be construed against Kansas City Life. The jury awarded over $5 million in damages, which was reduced to $908,075 under the statute of limitations. Both parties appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court held that the cost-of-insurance provision in the policy did not include profits and expenses, as these were not listed factors. The court also upheld the class certification, finding that common questions of law and fact predominated over individual issues. Additionally, the court agreed with the district court's application of Kansas law for the conversion claim and the statute of limitations for the breach-of-contract claim. The court found that the jury's damages award was supported by sufficient evidence and did not warrant an increase. View "Meek v. Kansas City Life Ins. Company" on Justia Law