Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, who provided subadvisory investment services and loaned $1.5 million to FolioMetrix (personally guaranteed by two individuals), later engaged with defendants involved in a proposed merger of investment firms. Plaintiffs alleged that during merger negotiations, defendant Putnam promised to relieve the original borrowers of their obligations and personally assume the debt. Subsequent communications referenced intentions to transfer the loan liability to the new entity, but when plaintiffs sought a formal promissory note, defendants refused. Ultimately, defendants did not repay any portion of the loan.Plaintiffs filed suit in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco in March 2019, alleging breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. At trial, the central dispute was whether defendants had agreed to assume the loan obligations under the promissory note. Plaintiffs argued that the agreement was formed through emails and conduct, while defendants denied any assumption of liability. The jury found in favor of defendants, determining no contract was formed and no promise was made to repay the loans. Following trial, the court awarded defendants attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717, based on a fee provision in the original promissory note, after reducing the requested amount.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, addressed several issues. It ruled that the automatic bankruptcy stay did not preclude resolution of the appeal because the debtor (NAI) was the plaintiff rather than a defendant. The court rejected plaintiffs’ claims of error regarding jury instructions on contract formation, finding insufficient argument and no prejudice. It affirmed the attorney fee award, concluding the action was “on the contract” containing the fee provision, and held the fee amount was within the trial court’s discretion. The judgment and fee order were affirmed. View "Navellier v. Putnam" on Justia Law

A Wyoming firearms manufacturer sought to expand its operations by constructing a new facility. The company, unable to directly access specific state economic development funds, partnered with a city and a local non-profit to obtain funding, resulting in a written agreement outlining each party’s roles. The non-profit was charged with managing the project, including hiring architects and contractors. During and after construction, the manufacturer identified substantial design and construction defects, including climate control problems, leaks, and structural issues. The manufacturer sued the non-profit for breach of contract and also sued the architect and contractor, asserting it was a third-party beneficiary of their contracts with the non-profit.In the District Court of Park County, the court dismissed the manufacturer’s claims against the architect and contractor, finding it was not an intended third-party beneficiary under their contracts, and granted summary judgment to the non-profit on all but one claim, determining that the non-profit’s contractual obligations were limited to financial administration of the project. The remaining claim was later dismissed by stipulation.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the manufacturer’s claims against the architect and contractor because, accepting the complaint’s factual allegations as true and considering the relevant contracts, the manufacturer had sufficiently alleged facts that could support third-party beneficiary status and breach of contract. The court also found the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the non-profit, concluding that the contract’s language and context imposed broader duties on the non-profit, including project administration and construction oversight, not merely financial management. The Supreme Court of Wyoming reversed the lower court’s orders of dismissal and summary judgment, allowing the manufacturer’s claims to proceed. View "Gunwerks, LLC v. Forward Cody Wyoming, Inc." on Justia Law

The dispute arose from a failed attempt to construct an osteopathic medical school in Gaylord, Minnesota. Philip Keithahn formed Minnesota Medical University, LLC (MMU) and retained Heritage Construction Companies, LLC as the general contractor. MMU planned to finance the project through bond proceeds, with a portion immediately available and the remainder contingent on achieving pre-accreditation. Representatives from Heritage sought confirmation of available funds prior to construction, and Keithahn assured them that the project would be funded and that millions would be available after closing. However, after initial payments, MMU ran out of funds when pre-accreditation was denied, leading Heritage to halt construction and terminate its contract.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota oversaw the case after Heritage and its affiliates faced indemnification claims and filed a third-party complaint against Keithahn and MMU. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment was denied, and the case proceeded to trial on claims including breach of contract, indemnification, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and fraud by omission. MMU admitted liability for breach of contract and damages. The jury found the defendants liable on all claims except fraudulent misrepresentation. Post-verdict, the district court denied defendants’ motions for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial, addressing issues of jury instructions, violations of in limine orders, improper statements, and impeachment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the appeal. It held that Keithahn’s representations regarding available financing were actionable as negligent misrepresentations, as they concerned present facts susceptible of knowledge rather than mere future assurances. The court found no error in the jury instructions, no prejudicial violation of evidentiary rulings, and no cumulative error warranting a new trial. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Heritage Const. Companies, LLC v. Keithahn" on Justia Law

A Delaware limited liability company entered into an agreement to purchase real property in Jefferson County, Alabama, from an Alabama limited partnership. The agreement included provisions for the recovery of attorneys’ fees by the prevailing party in litigation arising from the contract. Disputes arose regarding whether the buyer satisfied conditions to extend the closing date, leading the seller to declare the agreement terminated. The buyer sued the seller, the seller’s general partner (a California corporation), and various individual limited partners (in both their personal capacities and as trustees of family trusts), seeking among other relief, damages for breach of contract and a declaration of rights under the agreement. The contract also provided for reimbursement of transaction costs and attorneys’ fees under certain circumstances.The case proceeded in the Jefferson Circuit Court. The court granted summary judgment for the buyer on liability, finding the seller had breached the agreement, and set the issue of damages for a jury trial. Subsequently, disputes arose about whether attorneys’ fees should be decided by the jury or the court. The circuit court ruled that attorneys’ fees recoverable by the prevailing party under the contract would be determined by the court after trial, not by the jury. The seller, general partner, and limited partners sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court of Alabama, arguing they were entitled to a jury trial on attorneys’ fees.The Supreme Court of Alabama denied the petition for writ of mandamus. The Court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to a jury determination of prevailing party attorneys’ fees under the contract, because they did not adequately show that the Alabama Constitution or statutes provide such a right for this type of claim. The Court declined to overrule the circuit court’s decision to reserve the issue of attorneys’ fees for judicial determination following the trial on damages. View "Ex parte Vestavia Hills, Ltd." on Justia Law

Reinhardt Enterprises, LLC entered into a contract with BNG Holdings, Inc. to market BNG's services, with the contract set to automatically renew each year unless either party provided notice of non-renewal. After several years of automatic renewal, and shortly before BNG’s sale to Kaseya U.S., LLC, the parties amended the contract to include a provision entitling Reinhardt to a buyout fee if the agreement was "terminated" by BNG under certain circumstances. After acquiring BNG, Kaseya continued the contractual relationship for over two years before sending Reinhardt a letter of non-renewal, invoking the contract’s renewal clause, and explicitly refusing to pay the termination buyout fee.The case began after Reinhardt sued Kaseya in state court for breach of contract, alleging entitlement to the buyout fee. Kaseya removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, where it moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The district court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice, holding that the non-renewal of the contract did not constitute a "termination" as contemplated by the contract, and thus Reinhardt was not entitled to the buyout fee.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s contract interpretation de novo. The appellate court found the term "termination" to be ambiguous in the context of the contract, as it could reasonably refer both to ending the agreement midterm or simply to the end of the contractual relationship, including non-renewal. Because of this ambiguity, the Eighth Circuit held that the parties’ intent regarding the buyout fee must be resolved as a question of fact, reversed the district court’s dismissal, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Reinhardt Enterprises, LLC v. Kaseya U.S., LLC" on Justia Law

A law firm leased office space in downtown Washington, D.C. from a commercial landlord. In the spring of 2020, following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and in response to orders issued by the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the law firm curtailed most of its in-office operations and directed employees to work remotely. The firm subsequently invoked a rent abatement provision in its lease, arguing that the pandemic and the government’s orders constituted a force majeure event, which resulted in a material interference with its use and enjoyment of the premises due to an alleged interruption of the essential building service of “secure access” or “prompt access” to the building.The law firm filed a breach of contract suit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia after the landlord denied the rent abatement request. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The Superior Court denied the law firm’s motion and granted summary judgment to the landlord. The court found that the contract was unambiguous, and that there was no interruption of “secure or prompt access” to the premises, as the building remained physically accessible and the landlord did not impede entry. The court also determined that the government’s orders did not amount to a force majeure “taking” as defined by the lease. The law firm appealed.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court held that under the plain meaning of the lease, “secure and prompt access” refers to physical ability to enter the premises, as provided by the landlord, and not to a generalized right to use the premises free from government restrictions. Because the law firm’s access to the building was never impeded by the landlord, the rent abatement provision was not triggered. View "Crowell & Moring, LLP v. Trea 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue Trust" on Justia Law

A nonprofit organization, which hosts an annual art auction, held its 2022 event virtually. To facilitate the livestreamed auction and online bidding, it contracted with two vendors: one to provide the video feed and another to supply bidding software. The video vendor created a YouTube link for attendees to view the auction, and the bidding software synced with this feed, enabling participants to watch and bid on a single screen. Minutes before the event, the video vendor lost its internet connection, causing the YouTube link to break and severing the connection between the video feed and the bidding platform. As a result, auction attendees could neither view the auction nor place bids through the intended system. The auction was hurriedly redirected to a different platform, which resulted in a less effective, asynchronous experience and significantly lower fundraising.The nonprofit threatened legal action against the video vendor for breach of contract and negligence. The vendor, unable to pay, assigned its insurance claim to the nonprofit. The vendor’s insurer, Auto-Owners Insurance Company, had issued a general liability policy that covered certain types of property damage but contained a specific exclusion for damages arising out of the loss or inability to access electronic data. Auto-Owners filed for a declaratory judgment in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, seeking a ruling that its policy did not provide coverage. The district court granted summary judgment to Auto-Owners, holding that the policy’s electronic-data exclusion barred recovery.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s interpretation of Missouri law de novo. The appellate court held that the policy’s electronic-data exclusion clearly and unambiguously applied to the circumstances, barring coverage for the losses. Therefore, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Auto-Owners Insurance Company. View "Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Halo Foundation: Helping Art Liberate Orphans" on Justia Law

An individual seeking to refinance his mortgage visited a website that offers mortgage information and referrals to affiliated lenders. During three separate visits, he entered personal information and clicked buttons labeled “Calculate” or “Calculate your FREE results.” Immediately below these buttons, the website displayed language in small font stating that clicking would constitute consent to the site’s Terms of Use, which included a mandatory arbitration provision and permission to be contacted by the site or affiliates. The Terms of Use were accessible via a hyperlinked phrase. After using the site, the individual was matched with a particular lender but did not pursue refinancing. Later, he received multiple unwanted calls from the lender and filed a class-action lawsuit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleging violations such as calling numbers on the Do Not Call registry.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan initially dismissed the complaint on the merits and denied the lender’s motion to compel arbitration as moot. Upon realizing the arbitration issue should have been decided first, the court reopened the case but found no enforceable agreement to arbitrate existed, denying the motion to compel arbitration. The court also denied reconsideration and allowed the plaintiff to amend his complaint. The lender appealed the denial of arbitration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the denial de novo. It held that, under California law, the website provided reasonably conspicuous notice that clicking the buttons would signify assent to the Terms of Use, including arbitration. The court found that the plaintiff’s conduct objectively manifested acceptance of the offer, forming a binding arbitration agreement. The court also concluded that the agreement was not invalid due to unspecified procedural details and that questions of arbitrability were delegated to the arbitrator. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings. View "Dahdah v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC" on Justia Law

Selina Anderson, a federal employee with a history of severe lung disease, broke her leg in a parking lot accident and subsequently died less than a week later following complications from surgery. Her official cause of death was a pulmonary embolism, but her autopsy noted that her longstanding interstitial lung disease contributed to her death. Anderson’s daughter, Brittany Finney, was the beneficiary of Anderson’s life insurance policy under the Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Act (FEGLI), which included both standard and accidental death benefits.After Anderson’s death, Finney submitted claims for both types of benefits to Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife), the insurer. MetLife paid the standard life insurance benefit but denied the additional accidental death benefit. The denial was based on two grounds: that Anderson’s death was not “accidental” within the policy’s meaning, and that her death was “contributed to by” her pre-existing physical illness, thus falling under an exclusion in the policy. Finney filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, arguing that the denial breached the insurance contract. Both parties moved for judgment as a matter of law. The district court ruled in favor of MetLife, finding that the denial was reasonable under the policy’s physical illness exclusion.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Eleventh Circuit held that MetLife’s decision to deny accidental death benefits was not arbitrary or capricious, as the policy clearly excluded coverage when a physical illness contributed to the insured’s death. The court concluded that Anderson’s pre-existing lung disease contributed to her death and that MetLife’s denial was reasonable under the terms of the insurance contract. View "Finney v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Ten nonprofit organizations that received federal grants through the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ “Citizenship and Integration Grant Program” filed suit after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) froze and subsequently terminated their grant funding. The freeze and termination followed an executive order issued by the incoming President in January 2025 directing DHS to pause and review grants that funded services to undocumented immigrants, with the aim of ensuring compliance with law and preventing waste, fraud, or abuse. DHS notified grantees of the freeze in February 2025 and terminated the grants in March 2025, prompting the plaintiffs to seek a preliminary injunction to restore the program and funding.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The court determined that the plaintiffs’ claims were essentially contractual—seeking disbursement of funds based on grant agreements—and thus fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States Court of Federal Claims pursuant to the Tucker Act. The court also found that the plaintiffs had not identified a reviewable “final agency action” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Additionally, it concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to provide adequate legal authority for their ultra vires and separation-of-powers claims.Reviewing the appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Fourth Circuit held that the relief sought by the plaintiffs was materially indistinguishable from relief denied in recent Supreme Court cases, Department of Education v. California and National Institutes of Health v. Public Health Association. It concluded that claims seeking to enforce contractual obligations to pay money must be brought in the Court of Federal Claims and that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on their alternative constitutional or statutory claims. The district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction was therefore affirmed. View "Solutions in Hometown Connections v. Noem" on Justia Law