Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Katelyn Hove was hospitalized in 2018 for pregnancy complications, and the Billings Clinic billed Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Montana for her services. BCBS of Montana indicated that BCBS of Texas was her insurance provider. BCBS of Texas paid part of the bill, leaving a balance that Hove did not pay. The clinic assigned the unpaid debt to CB1, a debt-collection agency, which then sued the Hoves for breach of contract, breach of obligation, and unjust enrichment. The Hoves named BCBS of Montana as a third-party defendant. CB1 moved for summary judgment, supported by affidavits from the clinic. Hove responded with a written declaration disputing the charges, including an EOB from BCBS of Texas and an email from the Montana Commissioner of Securities and Insurance.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, granted summary judgment in favor of CB1, reasoning that Hove's declaration and attached EOB were unverified and inadmissible. The court entered a final monetary judgment against the Hoves. The Hoves filed a motion to amend the judgment, attaching a sworn affidavit with the same information as the declaration. The District Court denied the motion, stating that the declaration and its attachments were inadmissible hearsay and that the declaration did not meet the statutory criteria under § 1-6-105, MCA.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and found that a declaration under § 1-6-105, MCA, is equivalent to an affidavit. The court determined that Hove's declaration, which stated she never spent time in the ICU despite being billed for it, raised a genuine issue of material fact. The court reversed the District Court's summary judgment and remanded the case for trial on the merits. View "CB1 v. Hove" on Justia Law

Francine Pickett sued American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, American Modern Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Davison Insurance Agency, and various fictitiously named defendants. Pickett alleged that she sought to replace her existing mobile home insurance policy with American Bankers for a lower premium through Davison. She claimed that Davison advised her to purchase a policy from American Modern, which she did. However, American Bankers canceled her previous policy for nonpayment without her knowledge. When her mobile home was damaged by fire, American Modern refused to pay the claim, alleging fraud due to non-disclosure of the previous policy's cancellation. Pickett alleged bad faith, breach of contract, negligent procurement of insurance, civil conspiracy, and negligence against the defendants.The Wilcox Circuit Court denied American Bankers' motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation. American Bankers argued that Pickett had agreed to arbitration through a binder and previous insurance applications. The trial court found that Pickett never received a policy or arbitration agreement in 2022 and thus could not have accepted or rejected the arbitration clause. The court also found that previous policies or arbitration agreements were irrelevant to the current matter.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and reversed the trial court's decision. The court held that the binder, which included an arbitration agreement, was a contract that Pickett relied upon for her claims. Therefore, she could not seek the benefits of the binder while avoiding its arbitration provision. The court concluded that Pickett's claims against American Bankers arose from and relied on the binder, making her bound by its terms, including the arbitration agreement. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "American Bankers Insurance Co. of Florida v. Pickett" on Justia Law

Charles and Yvette Whittier sued Ocwen Loan Servicing, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Merscorp, and Mortgage Electronic Registration System to prevent the foreclosure of their home mortgage loan. The parties reached a settlement and notified the district court, which issued an interim order of dismissal pending final documentation. The parties then filed a Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Action under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and a proposed Order of Dismissal With Prejudice, which stated that the court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. However, the court's dismissal order did not explicitly retain jurisdiction or incorporate the settlement terms.The Whittiers later filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement and sought attorneys' fees. The defendants argued that the court lacked ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. A magistrate judge recommended enjoining foreclosure proceedings, and the district judge adopted this recommendation, issuing an injunction in April 2020. Over two years later, PHH and Deutsche Bank moved to reopen the case and dissolve the injunction, claiming the Whittiers were in default. A different magistrate judge found that the court lacked ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the settlement and recommended dissolving the injunction. The district judge agreed, dissolved the injunction, and dismissed the suit with prejudice in May 2024, explicitly declining jurisdiction over the settlement agreement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the district court lacked ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement because the dismissal order did not expressly retain jurisdiction or incorporate the settlement terms. The court affirmed the district court's decision to dissolve the injunction and dismiss the case with prejudice. View "Whittier v. Ocwen Loan Servicing" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Discovery Global Opportunity Master Fund, Ltd. and Discovery Global Beacon Partners, LP, filed a breach of contract action against Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. The dispute centers around a warrant agreement, which plaintiffs allege was breached when Hertz engaged in transactions they claim constitute a "Reorganization Event" under the agreement. Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief, monetary damages, and specific performance for Hertz's failure to honor the agreement.The case was initially filed in the Chancery Court of the State of Delaware. Hertz responded by filing a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the transactions in question did not constitute a Reorganization Event as defined in the warrant agreement. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, maintaining that the transactions did trigger the provisions of the agreement requiring redemption of the warrants.The Delaware Court of Chancery reviewed the case and granted Hertz's motion to dismiss. The court found that the transactions cited by the plaintiffs did not meet the definition of a Reorganization Event under the warrant agreement. Specifically, the court held that for a Reorganization Event to occur, the common stock must be converted into or exchanged for other property, which did not happen in this case. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' interpretation of the agreement was unreasonable and inconsistent with its plain language and commercial purpose. As a result, the court dismissed the complaint in its entirety. View "Discovery Global Opportunity Master Fund LTD & Discovery Global Beacon Partners LP v. Hertz Global Holdings Inc." on Justia Law

Givaudan SA, a Swiss multinational manufacturer of flavors and fragrances, entered into a business relationship with Conagen Inc., a Massachusetts-based synthetic biology company. In 2016, the two companies executed a term sheet outlining several potential transactions, including Givaudan's purchase of a 5% equity stake in Conagen for $10 million and an exclusivity agreement for Conagen's intellectual property. Givaudan paid the $10 million and received the shares, but negotiations on the exclusivity agreement failed.Givaudan sued Conagen in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, claiming breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment, seeking the return of its $10 million. After a bench trial, the district court found Conagen not liable on all claims and dismissed the case. Givaudan appealed the dismissal of its breach of contract claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Givaudan failed to prove damages, an essential element of a breach of contract claim under Delaware law. The court found that the $10 million payment for the 5% equity stake was a completed transaction and not contingent on the successful negotiation of the exclusivity agreement. The court also determined that the term sheet was a binding preliminary agreement that established a duty to negotiate in good faith, but Givaudan did not incur any costs or expenses that would qualify as reliance damages. Thus, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Givaudan v. Conagen" on Justia Law

In March 2020, Valence Natural Gas Solutions issued a request for proposal for the rental of natural gas generators. Gravity Oilfield Services submitted a price quotation in April 2020. After a pause in communication, discussions resumed in January 2021, and Gravity delivered the equipment to Valence in March 2021. From April 2021 to April 2022, Gravity sent monthly sales orders and invoices to Valence, which from September 2021 included a reference to terms and conditions on Gravity’s website. In April 2022, the equipment was damaged in a fire, and Gravity invoiced Valence for the replacement cost, which Valence did not pay.The District Court of McKenzie County initially denied Gravity’s first motion for summary judgment due to disputed material facts regarding contract formation and terms. However, upon Gravity’s renewed motion for summary judgment in March 2024, the district court granted the motion. The court concluded that the contract was formed in April 2022 and included Gravity’s terms and conditions by reference, making Valence liable for the damaged equipment and awarding attorney’s fees to Gravity.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s judgment. The Supreme Court found that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding when the contract was formed and whether Gravity’s terms and conditions were incorporated into the agreement. The court noted that the terms and conditions referenced in the April 2022 sales order and invoice were sent after the equipment was damaged, and there was a dispute over whether these terms were part of the original agreement. Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded that summary judgment was inappropriate and also reversed the award of attorney’s fees. View "Gravity Oilfield Services v. Valence Natural Gas Solutions" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between two long-time friends and business associates, where the plaintiff invested $3 million in Digipac LLC, controlled by the defendant, based on an oral agreement. The agreement promised the plaintiff an exit opportunity from the investment either if Remark Holdings, Inc.'s share price hit $50 or after five years based on the value of Digipac's Remark holdings. The plaintiff made the investment in two installments in 2012 and 2013. In 2014, the defendant unilaterally amended the LLC agreement, which included a merger clause stating that it superseded all prior agreements.The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court for breach of contract and promissory estoppel, seeking $11.6 million. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the oral agreement was superseded by the amended LLC agreement. The Supreme Court granted the motion, finding the oral agreement unenforceable and the promissory estoppel claim unreasonable. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the plaintiff was bound by the amended LLC agreement and its merger clause, which nullified the oral agreement. The court also dismissed the promissory estoppel claim, noting that it was duplicative of the breach of contract claim.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision. The court held that the amended LLC agreement, governed by Delaware law, unambiguously nullified the prior oral agreement through its merger clause. The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments that the defendant acted in a personal capacity and that the agreements involved different subject matters. The court also dismissed the promissory estoppel claim, as the amended LLC agreement governed the promise at issue. The court emphasized the importance of scrutinizing LLC agreements and protecting contractual rights in closely held LLCs. View "Behler v Kai-Shing Tao" on Justia Law

Jared Peterka, a neighbor and tenant of John and Irene Janda, assumed the lease of their farmland in 2012. The lease was renewed every three years, and in 2019, a right of first refusal for Peterka to purchase the land was added. In October 2018, the Jandas established a living trust and conveyed the property into it, with their daughters as residuary beneficiaries. In June 2021, the Jandas and Peterka executed an option to purchase the property. Shortly after, guardianship proceedings were initiated, and the Jandas were found incapacitated. The guardians rescinded the option to purchase.Peterka filed a complaint for declaratory judgment to validate the option to purchase. The Defendants counterclaimed, arguing the option was the result of undue influence and that the Jandas lacked capacity. After a four-day bench trial, the District Court of Traill County found the option to purchase was facially valid and not a product of undue influence. However, it ruled the option was voidable under N.D.C.C. § 14-01-02 due to the Jandas' lack of capacity and dismissed Peterka’s complaint.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. Peterka argued the district court erred in its findings on capacity. The Supreme Court clarified that the capacity to enter into a contract and the capacity under N.D.C.C. § 14-01-02 are distinct. The court found the district court did not misstate the law and its findings were supported by evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the option to purchase was voidable under N.D.C.C. § 14-01-02 due to the Jandas being of unsound mind but not entirely without understanding. View "Peterka v. Janda" on Justia Law

In 2012, the City of Providence suspended cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) pension benefits for retired police and fire department members. The retirees challenged this suspension, leading to a series of legal actions. Most retirees settled, agreeing to a ten-year suspension of their COLA benefits, but some plaintiffs opted out and pursued further legal action, claiming breach of contract and constitutional violations.The Superior Court granted partial summary judgment for the City on some claims and, after a bench trial, ruled against the plaintiffs on the remaining claims. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Rhode Island Supreme Court in Andrews I found that the 2012 ordinance violated the separation of powers doctrine by attempting to override prior consent judgments and judicial decisions. The case was remanded, and the Superior Court reinstated the plaintiffs' COLAs and awarded accrued benefits but did not address prejudgment interest.The plaintiffs then sought prejudgment interest on the past-due COLA payments, which the Superior Court denied, reasoning that the damages were not contractual in nature but were awarded based on constitutional grounds. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. The Court held that the plaintiffs' recovery of past-due COLAs was based on the enforcement of final judgments, not on a breach of contract. Since the award was rooted in constitutional law rather than contract law, the plaintiffs were not entitled to prejudgment interest under the relevant statute, which applies strictly to tort and contract claims. View "Andrews v. Lombardi" on Justia Law

Sterling Senechal submitted a claim to Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company for water damage caused by a broken water heater. Allstate issued three payments totaling $12,410.48. After a dispute over the loss amount, an appraisal determined the actual cash value to be $58,396.58, which Allstate paid minus the deductible and prior payments. Senechal then filed a lawsuit alleging breach of contract, violations of the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act (TPPCA), bad faith claims under Chapter 541 of the Texas Insurance Code, and breach of the common law duty of good faith and fair dealing. Allstate removed the case to federal court and paid what it calculated as the maximum potential interest owed.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of Allstate on all claims. Senechal conceded the breach of contract claim but opposed summary judgment on the other claims. The district court ruled that Allstate's payment of the appraisal award and interest defeated Senechal's claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the summary judgment on Senechal's bad faith claims under Chapter 541 and common law, citing the Texas Supreme Court's decision in Ortiz v. State Farm Lloyds, which held that payment of an appraisal award and interest precludes recovery for bad faith claims unless there is an independent injury. However, the court vacated the summary judgment on Senechal's TPPCA claims, noting that payment of an appraisal award and interest does not automatically absolve an insurer of TPPCA liability. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine whether Allstate's initial payment "roughly corresponds" with the appraisal award and whether Allstate is liable under the TPPCA. View "Senechal v. Allstate" on Justia Law