In 2010, Yan Chen, who had a business interest in a restaurant, entered into a 10-year lease agreement with Russell Realty, LLC, and MRT, LLC. The property to be leased was located in Greenville. The lease agreement was drafted by Russell Realty and contained an arbitration clause. In 2012, Russell Realty and MRT sued Chen along with Qiaoyun He, Joe Zou, and Yami Buffet, Inc., alleging breach of contract. Chen filed a response to the motion, alleging that she had been in China for a few months, and that she had not been personally served with notice of the lawsuit. She subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the lease agreement contained an arbitration clause and that "said complaint[] fails to state any measures that have been taken in lieu of the fulfillment of such agreed Arbitration Clause." The trial court denied both Russell Realty and MRT's motion for a default judgment and Chen's motion to dismiss. About a month after this, Chen filed a motion to compel arbitration, asserting that, as "part of Plaintiffs['] lease agreement, plaintiff[s] agreed to binding arbitration. In 2013, Chen filed a second motion to dismiss, alleging that Russell Realty and MRT had refused to mediate and had refused to arbitrate. Russell Realty and MRT filed an objection to Chen's second motion to dismiss, asserting that "time of the stay set by the court has almost expired and Defendant Yan Chen has not made any movement, act, or effort to seek Arbitration to resolve the issues." Russell Realty and MRT again sought a default judgment against the defendants, including Chen. She asserted that counsel for Russell Realty and MRT had failed to respond to her attempts to seek a settlement before the hiring of a mediator or arbitrator and that, subsequently, she had contacted a mediator/arbitrator and Russell Realty and MRT had not responded to her choice of mediator/arbitrator. The trial court then entered an order stating that the Chen's appeal was moot as the court had not yet entered a final order. In early 2015, the trial court entered an order awarding Russell Realty and MRT $682,050.10 against all the defendants, including Chen, jointly and severally. Chen appealed. Based on its review of the facts in the circuit court record, the Supreme Court reversed with regard to Chen and remanded the case for the trial court to enter an order requiring arbitration in accordance with the terms of the lease agreement. View "Chen v. Russell Realty, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2006, fire destroyed Calvin’s home. His insurer paid the claim, but indicated that it would not reinsure him. Calvin rebuilt on the same land and applied for a policy through the Mackey Agency. Calvin answered questions posed to him by Eleen Mackey, an employee, who entered the information into a computer. Asked if he had a fire loss within the previous three years, Calvin stated that he had a fire at the same location. Mackey printed the application. Calvin signed without reading it. The “No” box next to the question about prior fire loss was marked, but the blank within the question was not filled in. The space for Calvin's initials is also blank. Metropolitan issued a homeowner’s policy in 2007. Calvin paid the premiums regularly. In 2011, Calvin’s rebuilt home was destroyed by fire while the family was on vacation. Metropolitan’s investigation was inconclusive; no cause could be determined. Metropolitan denied Calvin’s claim and sought a declaratory judgment to void the policy, based on material misrepresentations in the application and the claims process, claiming that Calvin caused the fire to be set. Calvin counterclaimed breach of contract, slander, outrage, and bad faith. The district court determined that Calvin misrepresented his prior loss and that there was no evidence that Metropolitan acted in a dishonest, malicious, or oppressive manner. The Eighth Circuit reversed as to misrepresentation in the application and breach of contract, but affirmed with respect to bad faith and on Metropolitan’s defense of arson claim. Metropolitan can seek rescission of the contract. View "Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Calvin" on Justia Law

Jennifer Ploutis’ home was insured under a policy issued by Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company when water pipes in the home burst, damaging the home and certain contents. When the parties were unable to reach an agreement on the cost of certain repairs, Ploutis filed a complaint for breach of contract against Allstate. Upon the request of Ploutis, the action was nonsuited. Well after two years after the damage was sustained, Ploutis filed the present action. Allstate filed a demurrer asserting that Ploutis failed to comply with the conditions precedent under the policy by bringing the action within two years “after the inception of loss or damage.” The circuit court overruled the demurrer, concluding that the limitations period was tolled pursuant to Va. Code Ann. 8.01-229(E)(3), which tolls the “statute of limitations” with respect to nonsuited actions. Judgment was entered in favor of Ploutis. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court and entered final judgment for Allstate, holding that the circuit court erred in ruling that section 8.01-229(E)(3) applies to the contractual period of limitations for filing an action under Allstate’s policy. View "Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Ploutis" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a failed land sale contract between Plaintiff and Defendant. Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant, asserting claims for, inter alia, breach of contract and recession based on mutual mistake. Defendant counterclaimed for, inter alia, breach of contract, abuse of process, and nuisance. After a trial, the jury returned a unanimous verdict for Defendant on its nuisance and abuse of process counterclaims. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its mutual mistake rescission claim, as a mutual mistake will not provide a ground for rescission where one of the parties bears the risk of mistake; (2) an abuse of process claim may not be supported by a complaint to an administrative agency instead of one involving a legal process, and therefore, Defendant failed to establish the elements of abuse of process; and (3) a nuisance claim seeking only emotional distress damages does not require proof of physical harm, and the facts in this case supported the damages award arising under Defendant’s nuisance counterclaim. View "Land Baron Invs., Inc. v. Bonnie Springs Family LP" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his claims against Staples for breach of contract and for violations of New York General Business Law (N.Y. G.B.L.) Sections 349 and 350 for failure to state a claim. Sections 349 and 350 prohibit deception of consumers and false advertising. Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the district court erred in finding that the language of the Protection Plan Brochure (the Contract) that plaintiff purchased for his computer was unambiguous. The court concluded that plaintiff has adequately alleged both a materially misleading practice and an actual injury under N.Y. GBL Sections 349 and 350; with respect to the breach of contract claim, the district court erred in finding the Contract to be unambiguous, in requiring plaintiff to allege a “material” breach, and in finding that plaintiff had failed to adequately allege damages; construing the contract’s ambiguities in plaintiff’s favor, he has alleged Staples’s failure to perform in the first year of the contract and damages in the amount of his restitution interest; and should plaintiff seek damages beyond his restitution interest, he should amend his complaint. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded with instructions. View "Orlander v. Staples, Inc." on Justia Law

Vittorio and Lydia Gentile were policyholders under a Massachusetts automobile insurance policy issued by Commerce Insurance Company. Their grandson, Vittorio Gentile, Jr. (Junior), an “excluded operator” under the policy, was operating one of the Gentiles’ vehicles covered by the policy when he caused an accident that injured Douglas and Joseph Homsis. Commerce filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment that the Gentiles’ violation of the operator exclusion form relieved it of the duty to pay the Homsises under the optional bodily injury provisions of the insurance contract. A superior court judge concluded that Commerce was relieved of its duty to pay the optional coverage for the Homsis’ injures because the Gentiles had violated their duty of “continuing representation” as to whether Junior was, in fact, operating their vehicles. The Appeals Court affirmed both on that basis and on the basis that the Gentiles had breached the insurance contract. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed on the ground that, by allowing Junior to operate their vehicle, the Gentiles committed a breach of a material term of the insurance contract. View "Commerce Ins. Co., Inc. v. Gentile" on Justia Law

Defendants Charles and Stella Ohaeri leased space for a thrift store in a shopping center owned by plaintiff AP-Colton LLC. The thrift store was not a success, and the Ohaeris stopped paying rent. According to the Ohaeris, AP-Colton had fraudulently induced them to enter into the lease by stating that a church was going to move into the space next to theirs, but a competing store moved in instead. AP-Colton originally filed this case as a limited civil action, in which damages were limited to $25,000. The Ohaeris filed a cross-complaint seeking more than $25,000, but they did not pay the $140 fee required to reclassify the case as an unlimited civil action. Thereafter, AP-Colton filed an amended complaint seeking more than $25,000, because the Ohaeris should already have paid the reclassification fee, so AP-Colton did not pay it. After a bench trial, the trial court rejected the Ohaeris' fraud claims and awarded AP-Colton $126,437.25. The Ohaeris argued on appeal of that judgment that among other things, the case remained a limited civil action, and thus, the trial court erred by awarding damages of more than $25,000. The Court of Appeal agreed that the case should have remained a limited civil action. The Ohaeris, however, took the position below that the case had become an unlimited civil action, and the trial court accepted this position by awarding AP-Colton damages in excess of $25,000. The Court of Appeal held that as a result, the Ohaeris were judicially estopped to deny that the case was an unlimited civil action. Accordingly, on condition that it pays the $140 reclassification fee, AP-Colton can recover the full award. View "AP-Colton v. Ohaeri" on Justia Law

Starting in 2007, A&C Soaring Eagle, Inc. (A&C) purchased chemicals and fertilizer on account from Fitterer Sales Montana, Inc. (Fitterer). In 2009, Fitterer filed suit alleging that A&C and Clint Mullin, Jr. (Clint), A&C’s president and sole shareholder, personally owed Fitterer $98,184 and that it was owed interest on the amount due. After a bench trial in 2014, the district court found that A&C and Clint personally breached a contract with Fitterer for the sale of goods. The court ordered A&C and Clint to pay Fitterer $114,398, which included unpaid principal and interest calculated at a rate of ten percent per year from June 11, 2007 to November 30, 2014. The court also ordered A&C and Clint to pay $526 per month in prejudgment interest. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) a valid, binding contract existed between A&C and Fitterer for the sale of goods; (2) Fitterer was entitled to prejudgment interest on the amount due under the contract; and (3) as conceded on appeal by Fitterer, Clint should be dismissed as a defendant in this case. View "Fitterer v. Mullin" on Justia Law

This contract dispute was a portion of ongoing litigation initiated by the governing Boards of ten Cleveland community schools (“the schools”). Defendants were two private for-profit companies and ten subsidiary companies that operated and managed the schools (collectively, “White Hat”) pursuant to contracts with each school. The State Board of Education was also named in the complaint. The governing authorities of the schools filed suit challenging the operation of a buy-back provision of the contracts stating that the schools could retain personal property owned and used by White Hat in the schools’ daily operations after termination of the contracts only by paying certain payments to the management companies. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of White Hat. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals to the extent that it held that the buy-back provision of the contracts was enforceable and that the schools were obligated under that provision to pay for the personal property purchased by White Hat as described in the contract. Remanded to the trial court for an inventory of the property at issue and its disposition according to the contracts. View "Hope Academy Broadway Campus v. White Hat Mgmt., LLC" on Justia Law

Joseph and Janice Boyle sued C&N Corporation. C&N held an insurance policy issued by Zurich American Insurance Company requiring that C&N provide notice to Zurich of any lawsuit brought against it. C&N did not notify Zurich about the lawsuit, but the Boyles’ counsel did. Zurich did not defend against the suit. Judgement by default was entered for the Boyles. The Boyles then sued Zurich, asserting the claims of C&N, which had assigned to the Boyles. A superior court judge ruled that Zurich breached its contractual duty to defend C&N. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) an insured’s failure to comply with a notice obligation in an insurance policy does not relieve the insurer of its duties under the policy unless the insurer demonstrates that it suffered prejudice as a result of the breach; and (2) the superior court judge did not err in determining that Zurich committed a breach of its contractual duty to defend C&N, as Zurich failed to show that it was prejudiced as a result of C&N’s failure to comply with the policy’s notice obligation in this case. View "Boyle v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co." on Justia Law