Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Two individuals formed a limited liability company to purchase a jet, with one contributing funds that he had embezzled from a client. The company secured an aircraft insurance policy from an insurer, which later renewed the policy without investigating the source of funds used for the purchase. Eventually, the United States government seized the jet in connection with criminal charges against the member who committed the embezzlement. The other member had no knowledge of the crime.After the seizure, the company filed a claim with the insurer, seeking compensation under the policy for the loss. The insurer denied coverage and rescinded the policy, citing concealment of the material fact that embezzled funds were used to purchase the aircraft. The company sued for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Following trial in the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County, the trial court denied the insurer’s motion for judgment based on concealment, and the jury found in favor of the company, awarding substantial damages, including punitive damages.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case. Applying a de novo standard, the court held that an applicant for insurance has an affirmative duty to disclose material facts, even if the insurer does not specifically inquire about them. The court determined that the use of embezzled funds was a material fact, and the manager’s knowledge of the embezzlement was imputed to the company. Therefore, the insurer was entitled to rescind the policy. The judgment in favor of the company was reversed, and the company’s cross-appeal was dismissed. View "Passport 420, LLC v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Co." on Justia Law

A tavern operating in Washington, D.C., was required to maintain a security plan as a condition of its liquor license. The plan, approved by the District’s Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board, included a statement that “[p]olice and/or EMS are called for any emergency situation” under a section describing the training provided to security personnel. In May 2023, after a physical altercation occurred between a patron and the tavern’s security guards outside the establishment, the tavern did not contact the police, although the patron later filed a police report.Following the incident, the District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board initiated a show-cause proceeding to determine whether the tavern violated D.C. Code § 25-823(a)(6) by failing to adhere to its security plan. After a hearing, the Board found that the tavern was required by its plan to call the police during “any emergency situation,” determined that the incident qualified as such, and imposed a $1,000 fine alongside other sanctions. The Board interpreted the security plan in a manner akin to contract interpretation, concluding that the relevant provision imposed an affirmative obligation to contact the authorities during emergencies.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the Board’s order. The court held that, when read in context, the security plan provision in question described the content of the training provided to security personnel rather than imposing a standalone requirement that the tavern call the police in every emergency situation. There was no evidence presented that the required training had not been provided. Thus, the court ruled that the tavern did not violate its security plan and consequently did not violate D.C. Code § 25-823(a)(6). The court reversed the Board’s order. View "2461 Corporation T/A Madam's Organ v. District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between the principal members of a defense contracting company after Martin Kao, who had become the CEO and major owner, was charged with crimes related to fraudulent misuse of Paycheck Protection Program funds. The company, which relied on government contracts requiring strict security clearance, suffered significant harm when Kao’s actions led to the invalidation of its facility security clearance and placed it at risk of suspension from federal contracting. The original owner and another entity sought Kao’s disassociation and damages, citing breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and gross negligence. The parties were bound by an operating agreement requiring arbitration for disputes.After a civil complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, an amended operating agreement and voting trust limited Kao’s control, but the company continued to face loss of contracts and financial harm. Arbitration proceedings began, but Kao, citing pending federal criminal charges, unsuccessfully moved to stay the arbitration, arguing his rights against self-incrimination would be prejudiced. The arbitrator denied the stay and ultimately awarded significant damages, including punitive damages, to the plaintiffs.Kao moved to vacate the arbitration award in circuit court, arguing the arbitrator erred in refusing to postpone and in awarding punitive damages. The circuit court denied the motion, finding no “sufficient cause” for postponement and affirming the arbitrator’s authority. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”) largely affirmed, holding the arbitrator did not abuse discretion and the punitive damages award was within authority.Upon review, the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i held that the proper standard for “sufficient cause for postponement” under Hawai‘i law is “good cause,” and articulated three factors for courts to consider, grounded in the Hawai‘i Constitution. Applying these, the court found Kao had not met the standard, and affirmed the ICA’s judgment. View "Navatek Capital Inc. v. Kao" on Justia Law

Copper City Gaming, Inc. alleged that in July 2022, Eric Allen entered into a lease agreement with the corporation, resulting in four payments totaling $14,400. Copper City claimed these payments were fraudulent, part of a conspiracy between Eric and Russ Allen, and asserted causes of action for fraud, violation of the Montana Consumer Protection Act, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. The complaint specifically alleged the lease used the wrong address and corporate name, Eric lacked authority to sublease or failed to provide usable space, and Copper City never stored property there.Previously, a related action (DV-22-206) involved disputes between shareholder groups over management and use of corporate funds. That action began in Copper City’s name but, by court order, Russ and Camy Allen were substituted as plaintiffs, and Copper City was no longer a named party. The parties reached a mediated settlement, which included a Mutual General Release and Settlement Agreement, and a Special Master’s Order waiving certain business dispute claims, including storage-unit fees. The Special Master dismissed the action with prejudice as fully settled.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the District Court’s order granting Eric Allen’s motion to dismiss under M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on collateral estoppel grounds. The Supreme Court held that the complaint and materials properly considered at the pleading stage did not conclusively establish that the prior adjudication decided the identical issues now raised, that Copper City was adequately represented in the prior action, or that Copper City had a full and fair opportunity to litigate those issues. The Court also found the District Court erred by considering matters outside the pleadings without converting the motion to summary judgment under Rule 12(d). The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. View "Copper City Gaming v. Allen" on Justia Law

SWN Production Co., LLC leased land from Bluebeck Ltd. and paid royalties for gas extracted from the property. A dispute emerged over the lease’s performance, leading SWN Production Co. to seek a declaratory judgment on whether it was in default, whether Bluebeck was obligated to provide information needed to cure alleged defaults, and whether lease forfeiture required agreement or a judicial finding of default. The underlying issue concerned whether the lease could be terminated based on alleged defaults, which depended on future events.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania found the complaint unripe because any lease termination was contingent on future developments. As a result, it dismissed the action without prejudice, concluding there was no case or controversy suitable for judicial resolution under Article III. After the dismissal, Bluebeck Ltd. filed a motion for attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses based on a fee-shifting provision in the lease. The District Court denied this motion, reasoning that Bluebeck was not a prevailing party since the dismissal did not finally resolve the parties’ rights in its favor.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s assumption of jurisdiction and the denial of the fee motion. The appellate court determined that once the District Court concluded it lacked Article III subject-matter jurisdiction due to unripeness, it had no authority to rule on the fee motion. The main holding by the Third Circuit is that a federal court lacking Article III jurisdiction over the underlying claim cannot adjudicate a motion for attorney’s fees, costs, or expenses based solely on a contractual fee-shifting clause. The Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s order and remanded with instructions to dismiss Bluebeck’s fee motion. View "SWN Production Co LLC v. Blue Beck Ltd" on Justia Law

An airline operating among the Hawaiian Islands faced severe financial difficulties over several years, leading to its abrupt shutdown in November 2017. The airline had previously been owned by a trust affiliated with a prominent individual, then partially sold to entities controlled by other businessmen. When the airline closed, employees received only one day's notice and did not receive their final paychecks. Following the closure, a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee was appointed. Together with two unions representing affected employees, the trustee initiated adversary proceedings against the airline’s former owners, directors, and lenders, alleging violations of Hawaii’s Dislocated Workers Act (DWA) and the federal WARN Act for failure to provide the required notice and compensation. Additional claims included breach of fiduciary duties and requests for equitable remedies such as veil piercing and equitable subordination.The proceedings began in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Hawaii, but the District Court for the District of Hawaii withdrew the reference, consolidated the cases, and conducted a jury trial. The district court granted judgment as a matter of law for some claims and allowed others to proceed. The jury returned mixed verdicts, finding some defendants liable for statutory and fiduciary duty violations, but the court denied punitive damages and limited recovery to avoid double compensation. The court also ruled on equitable remedies, including piercing the corporate veil and equitably subordinating certain loans, and ordered contribution from a third-party defendant.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s judgment. It held that it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The panel affirmed the trustee’s and unions’ Article III standing. It reversed in part on fiduciary duty claims, concluding that minority stakeholders and affiliated entities could owe fiduciary duties and be deemed “employers” under the DWA. The court clarified the statutory definition of “employer” and the scope of the DWA’s safe harbor defense, ruling it was unavailable absent a binding divestiture. The panel affirmed evidentiary rulings, vacated the nominal damages award due to erroneous jury instructions, affirmed the prohibition of punitive damages, and upheld the equitable remedies and contribution order. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "KANE V. PACAP AVIATION FINANCE, LLC" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs purchased a residential lot from a developer and later alleged that defective grading and drainage in the subdivision caused water and erosion damage to their property. They claimed that the developer and seller deviated from an approved drainage plan, redirecting stormwater onto their lot. The plaintiffs discovered the source of the problem several years after purchasing the property, following a heavy rainstorm. Their claims included negligence, breach of contract, and breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike construction.The District Court of Oklahoma County conducted a bench trial. After the plaintiffs rested their case, the defendants moved for a directed verdict and argued that the tort and warranty claims were barred by Oklahoma’s ten-year statute of repose (12 O.S. § 109), and the contract claim was barred by the five-year statute of limitations (12 O.S. § 95). The trial court found that the improvement causing the harm was substantially completed more than ten years before suit, and that the contract claim accrued on the date the lot was conveyed. The trial court entered judgment for the defendants on all claims.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the appeal. It held that the statute of repose begins to run upon substantial completion of the specific improvement alleged to have caused harm, not the completion of the overall development. The only evidence of substantial completion was uncontroverted, showing completion more than ten years before suit, barring the tort claims. The implied warranty and contract claims were also time-barred by the statute of limitations, and Turner & Company was not a party to the contract. The judgment of the District Court was affirmed. View "ESCH v. TURNER & COMPANY, INC." on Justia Law

The dispute centers on the division of a government pension earned by an employee during a lengthy period of cohabitation before marriage. The employee worked at the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), contributing to his pension from 1987 to 2018. He and his partner began living together in 1993, executed a domestic partnership affidavit for benefits, purchased a home jointly, and eventually married in 2003. After their relationship ended, the partner sought legal separation and also filed a civil action alleging breach of an oral agreement made during their cohabitation period, in which they agreed to pool their earnings and share equally any property acquired as a result.The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco consolidated the civil and divorce proceedings. It bifurcated the case, first trying the claims regarding the oral agreement. After trial, the court found that an implied-in-fact (Marvin) agreement existed during the cohabitation period, entitling each party to an equal share of property acquired, including pension contributions and accumulations. The employee moved to clarify that statutory protections made his pension “unassignable” and “exempt from execution,” but the court held that the partner was entitled to half of the pension benefits accrued during the Marvin period, and could receive payment upon distribution or via other assets after actuarial valuation.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed whether Public Utilities Code section 12337 barred the partner from sharing in pension benefits accrued during cohabitation. The court held that section 12337 does not prohibit the partner from receiving a share of pension contributions and accumulations, because her claim was based on ownership arising from the Marvin agreement, not as a creditor or assignee. The trial court’s order was affirmed. View "Seiwald v. Irias" on Justia Law

Linda Keagle and her late husband obtained two loans in 2007 and 2008, totaling $450,000, from MLA Capital, LLC and Encarnacion Alvarez and her late husband. Both loans were evidenced by promissory notes with definite maturity dates in 2012 and 2013. The Keagles failed to make payments before the maturity dates, and subsequently, from August 2018 to March 2020, MLA Capital and the Alvarezes received monthly checks from C&C Organization, a company with which Linda was affiliated.MLA Capital and Encarnacion Alvarez filed a lawsuit in 2022 alleging breach of the promissory notes and related common counts. Linda moved for summary judgment in the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, arguing the claims were untimely under four-year and two-year statutes of limitations. She contended the payments made by C&C Organization did not restart or toll the limitations period, as she neither authorized nor signed the checks. Plaintiffs opposed, asserting a six-year statute of limitations applied and that the checks constituted partial payments restarting the limitations period. The trial court granted summary judgment for Linda, finding no evidence Linda had agreed to bear responsibility for the loans after maturity or authorized the payments.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case and held that a six-year statute of limitations under California Uniform Commercial Code section 3118 applies to the promissory note claims and related common counts, as it is more specific and recent than general contract limitations statutes. The court further determined there is a triable issue of material fact as to whether the payments from C&C Organization constituted partial loan repayments authorized by Linda, which could have restarted the limitations period under Code of Civil Procedure section 360. The judgment was reversed, and the trial court was instructed to deny summary judgment. View "MLA Capital, LLC v. Keagle" on Justia Law

Several employees of the Space and Missile Systems Center of the United States Air Force brought a qui tam action under the False Claims Act against Jeremy Burton, the Center’s former Deputy Chief Information Officer. The plaintiffs alleged that Burton, in coordination with a defense contractor, manipulated contract awards to ensure profits were shared in violation of federal regulations, thereby submitting fraudulent payment claims to the government.Initially, Burton moved to dismiss the claims, arguing that 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(1) barred the suit because he was a member of the armed forces, which would preclude jurisdiction over actions brought by one member of the armed forces against another arising out of military service. The United States District Court for the Central District of California first agreed and dismissed the claims against Burton. However, after further briefing on the status of the parties, the district court reconsidered and vacated its earlier order, concluding that Burton was a civilian employee and not a member of the armed forces. The suit was permitted to proceed, and Burton appealed before the case reached final judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit examined whether it had jurisdiction to review the interlocutory order denying Burton’s defense under section 3730(e)(1). The court held that the district court’s order did not meet the requirements of the collateral order doctrine, specifically because it was not effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. The statute at issue was determined to be a jurisdictional bar, not an immunity from suit, and thus not subject to interlocutory appeal. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "UNITED STATES V. BURTON" on Justia Law