Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

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her application, determined that it would not have reinstated the policy had it known of her true driving history, and rescinded the policy.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

Edward and Linda Diaz purchased a motorhome from a California dealer, receiving warranties from the manufacturer that included a clause requiring any legal disputes related to the warranties to be litigated exclusively in Indiana, where the motorhome was manufactured. The warranties also contained a choice-of-law provision favoring Indiana law and a waiver of jury trial. After experiencing issues with the vehicle that were not remedied under warranty, the Diazes sued the manufacturer, dealer, and lender in California under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, alleging failure to repair defects and refusal to replace or refund the vehicle.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted the defendants’ motion to stay the California action, enforcing the forum selection clause. The manufacturer had offered to stipulate that it would not oppose application of California’s Song-Beverly Act or a jury trial if the Diazes pursued their claims in Indiana. The court ordered the manufacturer to sign such a stipulation, holding that the Diazes could seek to lift the stay if Indiana courts declined to apply California law.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, concluded that the forum selection clause was unenforceable. The court held that the warranty’s terms, including the forum selection and choice-of-law provisions, violated California public policy by purporting to waive unwaivable statutory rights under the Song-Beverly Act. The court determined that the manufacturer’s post hoc offer to stipulate to California law did not cure the unconscionability present at contract formation and that severance of the unlawful terms would not further the interests of justice. As a result, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order staying the California action and directed entry of a new order denying the stay. View "Diaz v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc." on Justia Law

A software company that provides donor management and data hosting services for nonprofit and educational entities experienced a significant ransomware attack. Hackers accessed and exfiltrated sensitive client data over several months, leading to widespread concern among the company’s clients about the adequacy of the company’s response. Rather than conducting a thorough investigation and remediation itself, the company provided clients with a toolkit for self-investigation and remediation. Dissatisfied, the clients undertook their own investigations and incurred expenses for legal counsel, notifications, credit monitoring, and other remedial measures. Insurance carriers that had issued policies covering such cyber incidents paid out claims for these losses, then sought to recover from the software company as subrogees and assignees of their insured clients.The Superior Court of the State of Delaware initially dismissed the insurers’ complaints for failing to state a claim and, after amended complaints were filed, dismissed them with prejudice. The Superior Court reasoned that the insurers failed to provide sufficient factual support for each insured’s claim by pleading in the aggregate, and further found that proximate cause had not been adequately alleged, as the complaints did not link the damages to any specific contractual obligation.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reviewed the Superior Court’s decision de novo. The Supreme Court held that the insurers, as subrogees/assignees, adequately pled a breach of contract claim under New York law, which governed the agreements, and that Delaware’s notice pleading standard was satisfied. The Court found that the amended complaints sufficiently alleged the existence of contracts, performance by the insureds, breach by the company, and resulting damages, and that proximate cause was properly pled. The Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. View "Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America v. Blackbaud, Inc." on Justia Law

A global manufacturer of automotive clutches entered into a contract with a components manufacturer to supply levers for use in the clutches. The levers were to be manufactured strictly according to the specifications provided, with no design responsibility on the supplier. Between 2017 and 2018, several of the supplied levers broke, causing clutch failures in the field. The buyer communicated with the supplier about these issues through emails, reports, and meetings, and the parties disputed whether these communications constituted notice of breach. The buyer eventually filed suit for breach of contract and breach of express and implied warranties.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied the supplier’s motions for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment, holding that there were sufficient allegations and factual disputes regarding whether the buyer had given adequate notice of breach as required under Ohio law. The case proceeded to trial, where the jury found in favor of the buyer on all claims and awarded significant damages. The supplier appealed, arguing that the Ohio statute requiring pre-suit notice of breach barred the buyer’s claims, and that errors in witness testimony and jury instructions warranted a new trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The appellate court held that under Ohio Revised Code § 1302.65(C)(1), interpreted through Ohio Supreme Court precedent, notice of breach does not require explicit language alleging breach, but rather communication sufficient to alert the seller that there is a problem. The court found the evidence supported the jury’s verdict, the jury instructions properly reflected Ohio law, and there was no reversible error in the admission of witness testimony. The judgment in favor of the buyer was affirmed. View "Eaton Corp. v. Angstrom Auto. Group, LLC" on Justia Law

Two individuals each purchased a Mercedes-Benz vehicle that included a subscription-based system called “mbrace,” which provided various features through a 3G wireless network. When newer cellular technology rendered the 3G-dependent system obsolete, both customers asked their dealerships to replace the outdated system at no charge, but their requests were denied. Subsequently, they filed a class action lawsuit against Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Mercedes-Benz Group AG, asserting claims including breach of warranty under federal and state law.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, considered Mercedes’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, based on the arbitration provision within the mbrace Terms of Service. The district court found in favor of Mercedes, concluding that the plaintiffs were bound by an agreement to arbitrate their claims. Since neither party requested a stay, the court dismissed the case without prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that they had not agreed to arbitrate.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. Applying Illinois contract law, the appellate court determined that Mercedes had provided sufficient notice of the arbitration agreement to the plaintiffs through the subscription activation process and follow-up communications. The court found that Mercedes established a rebuttable presumption of notice, which the plaintiffs failed to overcome, as they only stated they did not recall receiving such notice, rather than expressly denying it. The Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs had assented to the agreement by subscribing to the service and thus were bound by the arbitration provision. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Jim Rose v Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC" on Justia Law