The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appealsaffirming the judgment of the trial court denying a motion to compel arbitration in this insurance dispute, holding that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to compel.Grace McGaughey, the trustee of a trust, entered into a contract with Money Concepts Capital Corporation and Legacy Consulting Group, LLC to purchase a variable annuity with Jackson National Life Insurance Company. The contract contained an arbitration agreement. Following McGaughey's death, the executrix of her estate sued Money Concepts, Legacy Conultants, and Jackson, alleging several common law and statutory claims. Money Concepts and Legacy Consulting moved to compel arbitration, which the trial court denied. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that McGaughey's investment was insurance, and therefore, the arbitration provision was unenforceable under Ky. Rev. Stat. 417.050(2). View "Legacy Consulting Group, LLC" on Justia Law

First Baptist retained Skyline to provide emergency remediation services to address wind damage to First Baptist’s real estate. Skyline then received the right to collect any proceeds from First Baptist's insurance policy with Church Mutual. Church Mutual subsequently disputed coverage in part and Skyline filed suit to recover the value of services provided to First Baptist but not paid by Church Mutual.The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Skyline's claims because they were barred by the applicable North Carolina statute of limitations. The court found that the applicable statute of limitations is three years from the date of loss, and agreed that Skyline's claims for declaratory judgment and breach of contract are time barred because Skyline brought this action in November 2019, more than three years after the time of loss; October 2016. The court denied as moot Church Mutual's motion to strike part of Skyline's reply brief. View "Skyline Restoration, Inc. v. Church Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and dismissing Plaintiffs' claim alleging that they were entitled to uninsured motor vehicle (UIM) benefits after they were injured in an automobile accident caused by another driver, holding that State Farm was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.After their accident, Plaintiffs filed claims with State Farm for full UIM benefits of $100,000 after settling with the tortfeasor's insurance company. When State Farm did not respond, Plaintiffs brought suit, asserting breach of contract, bad faith in delaying and denying payment for the benefits, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The district court granted summary judgment for State Farm. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under the unambiguous language of the State Farm insurance policy, Plaintiffs were not entitled to UIM benefits and were not entitled to relief on their claims. View "Bergantino v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari review to consider whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing a trial court’s order confirming an arbitration award against Interstate National Dealer Services, Inc. (“INDS”), in favor of Southern Mountain Adventures, LLC (“Dealer”), and Adventure Motorsports Reinsurance Ltd. (“Reinsurer”). The dispute arose from the parties’ contractual relationship pursuant to which Dealer sold motorsports vehicle service contracts, which were underwritten and administered by INDS, to Dealer’s retail customers, and Reinsurer held funds in reserve to pay covered repair claims. The Supreme Court concluded the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the confirmation of the award because the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law in rendering the award. In Case No. S21G0015, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision reversing the order confirming the arbitration award on that basis, and remanded for resolution of INDS’s argument that the arbitrator overstepped his authority in making the award. In Case No. S21G0008, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision dismissing as moot Dealer and Reinsurer’s appeal of the trial court’s failure to enforce a delayed-payment penalty provided in the arbitration award, and remanded for reconsideration of that issue. View "Adventure Motorsports Reinsurance, Ltd., et al. v. Interstate National Dealer Services, Inc." on Justia Law

BGC secured a $3.1 million mortgage loan from Romspen for the Arlington commercial property. Following a Foreclosure Judgment but before the sale of the property, the parties negotiated an agreement. Romspen agreed to forbear from exercising remedies for 60 days and to reinstate the loan and extend the maturity date for two years. BGC agreed to make a $1.6 million payment on the loan. Meanwhile, BGC learned that Romspen had filed a lien against BGC’s 1907 property. BGC had planned to refinance the 1907 Property to make the payment on the Arlington property required by the Forbearance Agreement. Romspen agreed to make “commercially reasonable efforts” to remove the lien. When BGC failed to provide proof of a refinancing plan for the Arlington Property, Romspen refused to remove the lien on the 1907 Property.After the foreclosure sale of the Arlington Property, BGC sought to file a counterclaim alleging that Romspen had breached the Forbearance Agreement. Romspen sought an order confirming the sale of the property. The Seventh Circuit confirmed the denial of BGC’s motion and the sale of the Arlington Property. Romspen did not breach the Forbearance Agreement because it made “commercially reasonable efforts” to remove the lien on the 1907 Property. Romspen was on solid ground in requesting some concrete proof of BGC's refinancing efforts before agreeing to remove the lien. View "Romspen Mortgage L.P. v. BGC Holdings LLC - Arlington Place One" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Canuto Martinez successfully sued a car dealership, Defendant Larry H. Miller Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram 104th (“LHM”), for violating section 6-1-708(1)(a), C.R.S. (2021), of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”). The issue this case presented for the Colorado Supreme Court's review was whether the judgment was final for purposes of appeal when the district court determined that Martinez, as the prevailing plaintiff, was entitled to an award of attorney fees under the CCPA, but the court had not yet determined the amount of those fees. The Supreme Court resolved the tension between Baldwin v. Bright Mortgage Co., 757 P.2d 1072, 1074 (Colo. 1988) and Ferrell v. Glenwood Brokers, Ltd., 848 P.2d 936, 940–42 (Colo. 1993) by reaffirming the bright-line rule established in Baldwin: a judgment on the merits is final for purposes of appeal notwithstanding an unresolved issue of attorney fees. To the extent the Court's opinion in Ferrell deviated from Baldwin, "its approach lacks justification and generates uncertainty, thus undermining the purpose of Baldwin’s bright-line rule." The Court concluded that both litigants and courts were best served by the bright-line rule adopted in Baldwin. The Court therefore overruled Ferrell and the cases that followed it to the extent those cases deviated from Baldwin’s rule concerning the finality of a judgment for purposes of appeal. Applying the Baldwin rule here, the Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing LHM’s appeal in part as untimely, though under different reasoning. View "LHM Corp v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Texas and Wyoming both regulate the use of indemnity agreements in their oilfields. Wyoming, concerned that indemnification disincentivizes safety, forbids oilfield indemnity agreements. Wyo. Stat. 30-1-131. Texas, concerned that large oil companies will use their leverage to demand indemnity from independent operators, also disfavors the agreements but does not ban them; it allows indemnification in limited situations including when the indemnity is mutual and backed by insurance. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. 127.003, 127.005.Cannon, a Wyoming oil-and-gas exploration company, and Texas-based KLX entered into a “Master Equipment Rental Agreement,” providing that Texas law governs the agreement and that the parties must “protect, defend, [and] indemnify” each other against losses involving injuries sustained by the other’s employees, regardless of who is at fault “to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law.” Most of the work performed under the contract occurred in Wyoming with none in Texas. Indemnity was sought for a Wyoming lawsuit filed by a Wyoming resident injured in a Wyoming oilfield operated by a Wyoming business.The Fifth Circuit held that Wyoming law prevails and that the indemnity provision in the Agreement is unenforceable. Wyoming has a more significant relationship to the parties and a materially greater interest in applying its policy; its anti-indemnity policy is “fundamental.” View "Cannon Oil & Gas Well Services, Inc. v. KLX Energy Services, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Brett Deslonde appealed the grant of summary judgment entered in favor of Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, doing business as Mr. Cooper ("Nationstar"), and The Bank of New York Mellon, as trustee for Nationstar Home Equity Loan Trust 2007-C ("BNYM"), on Deslonde's claim seeking reformation of a loan-modification agreement on the ground of mutual mistake. In December 2006, Deslonde purchased real property in Fairhope, Alabama with a loan from Nationstar. Deslonde subsequently defaulted on his mortgage payments and applied for a loan modification through Nationstar's loss-mitigation program. By letter dated February 2014, Nationstar notified Deslonde that he had been approved for a "trial period plan" under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program ("the federal program"). Under the federal program, Deslonde was required to make three monthly trial payments in the amount of $1,767.38 and to submit all required documentation for participation in the program, including an executed loan-modification agreement. In July 2014, Nationstar informed Deslonde that his request for a loan modification under the federal program had been denied because he had not returned an executed loan-modification agreement or made the trial payments. That letter informed Deslonde that there were other possible alternatives that might be available to him if he was unable to make his regular loan payments. Deslonde submitted a second application package for loss mitigation in October 2014. Under the executed modification agreement from the second application, Deslonde made monthly payments sufficient to cover only interest and escrow charges on the loan. The loan-modification period, however, expired in November 2016, at which time the monthly payments reverted to the premodification amount so as to include principal on the loan. After the loan-modification period expired, Deslonde made three additional monthly payments, but he then ceased making payments altogether. In an attempt to avoid foreclosure, Deslonde filed a complaint against Nationstar and BNYM in the Baldwin Circuit Court ("the trial court"), requesting a temporary restraining order enjoining foreclosure of the mortgage, a judgment declaring the parties' rights under the executed modification agreement, and reformation of the executed modification agreement on the ground of mutual mistake. Finding that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Nationstar and BNYM, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed. View "Deslonde v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, d/b/a Mr. Cooper et al." on Justia Law

MAPS Hotel and Resorts One LLC (the “Buyer”) agreed to purchase fifteen hotel properties from AB Stable VIII LLC (the “Seller”) for $5.8 billion. In response to the pandemic and without securing the Buyer’s consent, the Seller made drastic changes to its hotel operations, due in part to the damage the pandemic inflicted on the hospitality industry. The transaction was also plagued by problems with fraudulent deeds covering some of the hotel properties. The Buyer eventually called off the deal, relying on the Seller’s failure to comply with the sale agreement. The Seller sued in the Delaware Court of Chancery to require the Buyer to complete the transaction. The Court of Chancery concluded that the Buyer could terminate the sale agreement because the Seller breached a covenant and a condition in the sale agreement. According to the court, the Seller violated the ordinary course covenant by failing to operate in the ordinary course of its business - closing hotels, laying off or furloughing thousands of employees, and implementing other drastic changes to its business - without the Buyer’s consent. Additionally, a condition requiring title insurance for the hotel properties failed because the title insurers’ commitment letters had a broad exception covering the fraudulent deeds, and the Buyer did not cause the failure. On appeal, the Seller argued it satisfied the Ordinary Course Covenant because the covenant did not preclude it from taking reasonable, industry-standard steps in response to the pandemic; the court’s ruling negated the parties’ allocation of pandemic risk to the Buyer through the Material Adverse Effect provision; and its breach of the notice requirement in the covenant was immaterial. The Seller also claimed the Court of Chancery gave too expansive a reading to the exception in the title insurance condition, or, alternatively, that the court incorrectly found that the Buyer did not contribute materially to its breach. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery’s judgment, finding the court concluded correctly that the Seller’s drastic changes to its hotel operations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic without first obtaining the Buyer’s consent breached the ordinary course covenant and excused the Buyer from closing. Because the Seller’s failure to comply with the ordinary course covenant was dispositive of the appeal, the Supreme Court did not reach whether the Seller also breached the title insurance condition. View "AB Stable VIII LLC v. Maps Hotels and Resorts One LLC" on Justia Law

Leland Swanson appealed a judgment dismissing his breach of contract and professional negligence claims against Mark Larson and Mark Larson, CPA, PLLC. In 2017, Swanson hired Larson to provide a forensic accounting of various entities owned by Swanson. Larson provided the accounting services in anticipation of litigation against Swanson’s former business partner. During discovery in subsequent litigation against the former business partner, Larson was identified as an expert witness in a July 2018 response to interrogatories. Larson ended his engagement in January 2019 by providing written notice to Swanson’s attorney. After Larson’s termination, Swanson retained another expert to testify in the pending litigation. In January 2020, Swanson sued Larson for breach of contract and professional negligence, alleging Larson breached their agreement and committed professional negligence by terminating his services and refusing to testify as an expert witness in the litigation against the former business partner. Larson moved for summary judgment, arguing the agreement did not require him to testify at trial. He also argued the agreement was terminable at will by either party, and he did not breach the agreement by terminating his services. On appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court, Swanson argued the district court prematurely and improperly granted summary judgment in Larson’s favor. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Swanson v. Larson" on Justia Law