The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of American Bituminous Power Partners (AMBIT) and dismissing the breach of contract action brought by Horizon Ventures of West Virginia, holding that the circuit court erred in finding that the agreement between the parties was unconscionable.Horizon and AMBIT entered into a contract and agreement whereby Horizon agreed to provide consulting services to AMBIT in exchange for $50,000 annually. When, years later, AMBIT refused to pay Horizon, Horizon brought this breach of contract action. The circuit court granted summary judgment for AMBIT, finding that the agreement was substantively unconscionable and violative of public policy. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in finding the consulting agreement unconscionable without finding both procedural and substantive unconscionability. View "Horizon Ventures of West Virginia, Inc. v. Bituminous Power Partners, L.P." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the court of special appeals concluding that prejudgment interest on defense costs where a party breaches its duty to defend does not fall within the exception to the "modified discretionary approach" and is within the discretion of the fact-finder.The modified discretionary approach used by Maryland courts in awarding prejudgment interest generally places the award of prejudgment interest within the discretion of the trier of fact but also recognizes exceptions where a plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest as a matter of right. At issue was whether prejudgment interest should be awarded as a matter of right. The Court of Appeals held (1) prejudgment interest on defense costs is left to the discretion of the fact-finder; and (2) where the jury in this case was not presented with a claim of prejudgment interest, was not instructed on the issue, and did not separately state an award of prejudgment interest in the verdict, the circuit court was not authorized to award prejudgment interest. View "Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Selective Way Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court declining to award attorney's fees to Plaintiffs in this case, holding that the circuit court erred in failing to award the amount of attorney's fees Plaintiffs incurred in defending lawsuits initiated by Defendant as damages in this action for breach of a covenant not to sue.During bankruptcy proceedings, the parties in this case entered into a settlement agreement wherein Plaintiffs relinquished all rights to sue Defendants. Less than one year later, Defendant breached the covenant not to sue by suing Plaintiffs twice in state court and once in federal court. Plaintiffs then brought this action alleging breach of the settlement agreement. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs but declined to award attorney's fees. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred by denying an award of attorney's fees. View "Bolton v. McKinney" on Justia Law

In 1987, Central purchased certain Soo assets, including LST rail lines. Soo agreed to retain liability and indemnify Central for “all claims for environmental matters relating to ownership of the Assets or the operation of LST that are asserted” within 10 years of closing, after which Central would assume all liability and indemnify Soo. Years later, contamination was discovered in a former Ashland industrial area, now Kreher Park, which contains a railroad right-of-way purchased by Central under the Agreement. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) identified an old factory as the likely source; its owner, Northern, named as a potentially responsible party (PRP), undertook to shift responsibility to the railroads. Central kept Soo apprised of the situation. Central sent notification to Soo in 1997 that it was seeking indemnification for environmental matters, including at Kreher Park. Soo did not agree to indemnify or defend.In 2002, the EPA designated the area as a Superfund site (CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601). In 2011, the EPA issued PRP notices to Central, Soo, Northern, and others. Northern sued Central, Soo, and the city for its cleanup expenses. The EPA cited evidence that the railroads engaged in activities contributing to the contamination. The railroads settled the EPA and Northern claims for $10.5 million.In breach of contract litigation between the railroads, the district court granted Soo summary judgment, finding that no claim had been asserted during the claim period. Central then argued that it should not be responsible for the portion of the environmental claims attributable to operations and land not purchased by Central. The court rejected the argument and awarded Soo $10,799,427, prejudgment interest, and $1,776,764 for attorneys’ fees. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. No “claim” was asserted against the railroads during the Agreement’s claim period; Northern never threatened litigation and the WDNR did not take any action that imposed any legal duties or impending legal peril on either railroad. The operation of the railroad business, not just the ownership of the assets, was identified by the EPA as contributing to the contamination; the claims are within the scope of the indemnification clause. View "Wisconsin Central LTD v. Soo Line Railroad Co." on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the decision of the district court refusing to enforce arbitration clauses in the employment agreement between New York Life Insurance Company and Ketler Bosse, which expressly required that any disputes about arbitrability be referred to the arbitrator, holding that the district court abused its discretion.After New York Life terminated its business relationship with him Bosse brought this action alleging race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 1985 and other state law claims. New York Life asked the court to compel arbitration and stay or dismiss the lawsuit, but the district court refused. The First Circuit reversed, holding (1) the district court's analysis contravened the Supreme Court's holdings in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524 (2019), First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995) and other cases; and (2) the arbitration clause was clear, unmistakable, and unambiguous and should have been enforced on those terms. View "Bosse v. New York Life Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Court of Chancery granted Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings in this action seeking to draw or claw back several million dollars in cash, holding that Defendants were entitled to the motion.Seller sold all outstanding shares of its wholly owned subsidiary (together, with its subsidiaries, Target) to Buyer (together with Target, Defendants). All of Target's assets, except for those excluded by the parties' purchase agreement, were transferred in the stock transaction (the disputed cash). After the transaction closed, millions of dollars in cash remained in Target's bank accounts. Seller asked Buyer to return the disputed cash but Buyer refused. Seller then brought this complaint. Defendants sought judgment on the pleadings in their favor. The Court of Chancery granted the motion, holding that no material issue of fact existed and that Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "Deluxe Entertainment Services Inc. v. DLX Acquisition Corp." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing the claims in Plaintiffs' complaint against WM Capital Management, Inc. and granting summary judgment in favor of WM Capital on its counterclaim, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion.This case arose from a dispute over the enforcement of a contract that controlled the liquidation and assignment of several mortgage notes. Plaintiffs initiated an action against WM Capital bringing claims for redemption of property and breach of contract. WM Capital filed a counterclaim seeking specific performance of the contract and joinder of Tenerife Real Estate Holdings, LLC, a signatory to the contract at issue. The district court joined Tenerife, dismissed Plaintiffs' complaint, and granted summary judgment for WM Capital on its counterclaim. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err. View "Almeida-Leon v. WM Capital Management, Inc." on Justia Law

Cobbs, Allen & Hall, Inc. ("Cobbs Allen"), and CAH Holdings, Inc. ("CAH Holdings") (collectively,"CAH"), appealed the grant of summary judgment entered in favor of EPIC Holdings, Inc. ("EPIC"), and EPIC employee Crawford E. McInnis, with respect to CAH's claims of breach of contract and tortious interference with a prospective employment relationship. Cobbs Allen was a regional insurance and risk-management firm specializing in traditional commercial insurance, surety services, employee-benefits services, personal-insurance services, and alternative-risk financing services. CAH Holdings was a family-run business. The families, the Rices and the Densons, controlled the majority, but pertinent here, owned less than 75% of the stock in CAH Holdings. Employees who were "producers" for CAH had the opportunity to own stock in CAH Holdings, provided they met certain sales thresholds; for CAH Holdings, the equity arrangement in the company was dictated by a "Restated Restrictive Stock Transfer Agreement." For several years, McInnis and other individuals who ended up being defendants in the first lawsuit in this case, were producers for CAH, and McInnis was also a shareholder in CAH Holdings. In the fall of 2014, a dispute arose between CAH and McInnis and those other producers concerning the management of CAH. CAH alleged that McInnis and the other producers had violated restrictive covenants in their employment agreements with the aim of helping EPIC. Because of the dispute, CAH fired McInnis, allegedly "for cause," and in November 2014 McInnis went to work for EPIC, becoming the local branch manager at EPIC's Birmingham office. After review, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment finding CAH's breach-of-contract claim against McInnis and EPIC failed because no duty not to disparage parties existed in the settlement agreement. EPIC was not vicariously liable for McInnis's alleged tortious interference because McInnis's conduct was not within the line and scope of his employment with EPIC. EPIC also was not directly liable for McInnis's alleged tortious interference because it did not ratify McInnis's conduct as it did not know about the conduct until well after it occurred. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the circuit court's conclusion that McInnis demonstrated that he was justified as a matter of law in interfering with CAH's prospective employment relationship with Michael Mercer. Based upon the admissible evidence, an issue of fact existed as to whether McInnis gave Mercer honest advice. Therefore, the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Cobbs, Allen & Hall, Inc., and CAH Holdings, Inc. v. EPIC Holdings, Inc., and McInnis." on Justia Law

Daimler-Benz AG acquired Freightliner Corporation (Freightliner) from Consolidated Freightways (now Con-Way) in 1981. As part of the transaction, it liquidated Freightliner’s assets and liabilities into a subsidiary, Daimler Trucks North America LLC (Daimler). Between 1952 and 1982, Freightliner and then Daimler had engaged in business activities, primarily the manufacture of trucks, that subsequently led to several environmental remediation proceedings, including claims related to the Portland Harbor Superfund cleanup, and to some 1,500 asbestos personal injury claims. Plaintiffs Allianz Global Risk US Insurance and Allianz Underwriters Insurance Company (Allianz) insured Freightliner in 1981 and Daimler from 1981 to 1986 through a general commercial liability insurance policy. Daimler also purchased from Allianz another policy to provide coverage for future claims that might be made against Freightliner based on its past operations that were “incurred but not yet reported.” By the time it filed the operative complaint in this action in 2014, Allianz had spent more than $24 million defending and paying environmental and asbestos claims against Daimler and the now-dissolved Freightliner arising from Freightliner’s business operations between 1952 and 1982. In this litigation, Allianz sought contribution for the payments it has made and will make in the future based on those environmental and asbestos claims from insurance companies that insured Freightliner -- either directly or through its parent, Con-Way -- from 1976 to 1982. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' holding that Daimler did not assume the contingent liabilities of Freightliner (including the liabilities at issue here) and affirmed the jury verdict on that issue. On Allianz's appeal, the Supreme Court agreed that the trial court erred in submitting to the jury the question of whether, because of side agreements between Con-Way/Freightliner and the insurers, those insurers had a "duty to defend or indemnify Freightliner" -- that question was to be decided by the trial court as a matter of law based on the relevant policies. As to the "London pollution exclusion", the Supreme Court agreed with Allianz that it was error for the trial court not to provide a legal interpretation of a key provision in the policy as part of the jury instructions. The Court also concluded that the jury instructions regarding the London pollution exclusion should be similar to those regarding the Domestic exclusion. The decision of the Court of Appeals was reversed. The limited judgments of the trial court were affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Allianz Global Risks v. ACE Property & Casualty Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the circuit court's denial of summary judgment in favor of the University of Louisville in this breach of contract action, holding that Plaintiff brought her action outside of the one-year period following the date of completion of her last written contract.After Plaintiff's employment at the University ended she brought this action alleging that the University breached its employment contract with her. The University moved for summary judgment, asserting that governmental immunity shielded it from liability. The circuit court denied the motion for summary judgment. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the University was shielded from liability due to governmental immunity. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding that Plaintiff's claim was filed outside of the limitations period of Ky. Rev. Stat. 45A.260. View "Britt v. University of Louisville" on Justia Law