William Gross executed an agreement with David Fiala, Ltd. (FuturesOne) setting forth the terms of Gross’ employment with FuturesOne. The agreement contained an arbitration provision. FuturesOne later filed a complaint against Gross and three other individuals who had signed similar agreements with FuturesOne, alleging that after the defendants had resigned from FuturesOne they failed to pay amounts owed to FuturesOne and violated the agreement by competing with FuturesOne. Gross moved to compel arbitration. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the claims in this action were not subject to arbitration under the arbitration provision of the agreement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred as a matter of law when it failed to determine that the arbitration provision was ambiguous and to thereafter resolve the ambiguity by considering appropriate extrinsic evidence. Remanded. View "David Fiala Ltd. v. Harrison" on Justia Law

The parties in this case owned interests in certain oil and gas leases in Sublette County, Wyoming. In the underlying litigation, the district court granted a monetary judgment against Defendants for amounts due to Plaintiffs. Defendants paid the monetary judgment. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to enforce judgment, claiming that Defendants were not properly accounting to them as required by the prior declaratory judgment and a net profits contract (NPC). After the district court issued its judgment, Defendants appealed the court’s decisions on the merits and its order requiring Defendants to pay attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed as revised, holding that the district court (1) properly assumed jurisdiction over the issues presented; (2) correctly interpreted its prior judgment and Defendants’ accounting responsibilities under the NPC; and (3) properly granted Plaintiffs’ request for attorney fees with one minor exception. View "Ultra Resources, Inc. v. Hartman" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a resident of California, and Defendant, a resident of Michigan, worked together with a third man to develop and market an electrolyte for use in hydrogen fuel cells. When Plaintiff and the third man sold the electrolyte technology without telling Defendant, Defendant threatened to sue if he was not paid what he claimed was his one-third share of the proceeds under an oral agreement. Thereafter, Plaintiff sued Defendant in California seeking a declaration that no oral agreement existed between the parties and for damages for intentional interference with a sales contract. The district court dismissed the suit, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction over Defendant on either of the two claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Defendant neither purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities in California nor expressly aimed his conduct at California, the district court did not err in dismissing the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. View "Picot v. Weston" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Trilogy at Glenn Ivy Maintenance Association and various homeowners filed suit against defendant Shea Homes, Inc., and others alleging, inter alia, that Shea improperly diverted revenues from a contract that should have been paid to Association. After Shea sought and obtained judgment on the pleadings, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and Shea responded by moving to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP, strategic lawsuit against public participation, statute). The trial court denied the motion and Shea appealed. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded the trial court correctly found Shea had not satisfied its initial burden of showing plaintiffs' claims arose from protected activity and therefore correctly denied Shea's motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP law. View "Trilogy at Glen Ivy v. Shea Homes" on Justia Law

In this case, the buyer persuaded the Superior Court to award it $15.1 million in damages when the buyer bought a 65% interest in an investment advisory firm for $25 million. The buyer’s premise was that it would not have paid $25 million but for its expectancy that it would manage seven funds for three or more years. But the majority of the assets under management at the investment advisory firm were attributable to accounts other than the seven funds. Significantly, the contract enabled the seller to terminate the buyer’s right to manage the seven funds for any reason, so long as it paid a termination fee capped at $3.5 million, and to terminate the buyer without any compensation if the seller believed its fiduciary duties required or if the buyer’s performance fell below a contractual standard. After three years, the seller could terminate the buyer as manager of the funds for any reason and owe no compensation at all. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court. The Supreme Court found that instead of giving effect to the parties’ contractual bargain, the Superior Court erred by implying contractual obligations on the part of the seller that were inconsistent with the contract’s express terms. This enabled the buyer to obtain in litigation benefits in excess of those potentially available under the contract, and contractual protections that the buyer had failed to obtain in negotiations. The case was remanded for a determination of what, if any, termination fee is due to the buyer because of the seller’s termination of it as manager of the funds. View "Nationwide Emerging Managers, LLC, et al. v. Northpointe Holdings, LLC, et al." on Justia Law

Atwood Health Properties, LLC contracted with Calson Construction Company to construct a medical office building. Calson engaged Gem Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc. (GEM) as a subcontractor to design and install a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system. Five years after the project was completed, Atwood sold the building to Atwood Medical Properties, LLC (AMP). When AMP experienced compressor failures in the HVAC system, AMP filed suit against Atwood. Atwood paid for a new HVAC system and initiated arbitration proceedings against Calson to recover its costs. Calson, in turn, initiated an arbitration proceeding against GEM for indemnification under the parties’ contract. The two arbitration proceedings were consolidated. The arbitrator concluded that Calson should pay Atwood $358,223 and that GEM should pay Calson that same amount. The superior court confirmed the arbitration award. GEM appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice properly confirmed the arbitration award. View "Atwood Health Props., LLC v. Calson Constr. Co." on Justia Law

I-CA is a small business owned by Alonis that imports products from Israel to California. Palram, based in Israel, manufactures corrugated panels. I-CA opened the first U.S. warehouse for Palram and started importing its products. In 1997 or 1998, Palram lost the business of selling wood closure strips to Home Depot. While exploring alternatives for Palram, I-CA established a business relationship with Plasgad. Plasgad and I-CA worked together for many years to develop a plastic closure strip specifically for Palram products. Plasgad obtained a patent for the strips in 2002. I-CA became Palram’s sole supplier; Palram was the exclusive distributor of the products. Plasgad began selling the strips directly to Palram in 2007. I-CA sued both companies for tortious interference with contractual relations. Separate awards of $225,137.62 plus prejudgment interest were entered in favor of I-CA against each. A third award of $327,396.96, plus prejudgment interest of $157,778.41 was made in favor of Plasgad and against I-CA for breach of contract, offset against the award in favor of I-CA, resulting in a net recovery to Plasgad of $260,604.48. I-CA was awarded costs against Palram as the prevailing party, but Plasgad was awarded costs against I-CA as the prevailing party. The court of appeal affirmed. View "I-CA Enters., Inc. v. Palram Am., Inc." on Justia Law

Richard M. Gilley sued his former employer, Southern Research Institute ("SRI"), seeking compensation he alleged he was owed as a result of his work leading to SRI's procurement of United States Patent No. 5,407,609. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of SRI, and Gilley appealed that judgment to the Supreme Court. After review, the Supreme Court found that because Gilley did not timely assert a claim based on a January 2005 transaction in his complaint and because the money received by SRI in a July 2007 transaction was not intellectual-property income subject to sharing under the SRI awards policy, the summary judgment entered by the trial court was proper and was therefore affirmed. View "Gilley v. Southern Research Institute" on Justia Law

A “viatical” or “life settlement” permits an insured to sell his life insurance policy. Federal tax and some state laws have been amended to accommodate the practice. In 2006, an agent persuaded Close, age 74, to apply for a $5 million life insurance policy. As submitted to PHL, his application falsely stated Close’s net worth and income, and failed to disclose his conviction for receiving illegal kickbacks. Under the agent’s guidance, Close falsely stated his net worth to obtain a two-year, $300,225 premium financing loan from CFC, a PHL-approved funding source. The policy was pledged as collateral; Close personally guaranteed 25 percent of the loan, believing that the policy would be worth $1.3 million in two-years, when it became “incontestable” under Minn. Stat. 61A.03.1(c) and that he would be able to sell it for $500,000. PHL conducted minimal investigation and received premiums of $272,025; CFC received $14,200 in fees; and the agent and a CFC employee split substantial commissions. In 2009, BNC explained Close’s options for repayment: refinancing, selling, or relinquishing the policy to the lender. The secondary market had crashed. Close surrendered the policy. When Close died in 2011, investigation revealed the fraudulent misrepresentations, but rescission was foreclosed by the incontestability statute. PHL sought a declaratory judgment that the policy was void as contrary to public policy for lack of an insurable interest. The district court agreed. The Eighth Circuit reversed, stating that permitting insurers to resist paying based on evidence that an insured used premium financing and planned to sell, is “not a result the Supreme Court of Minnesota would find acceptable in exercising its ‘delicate and undefined power’ to declare a contract void. View "PHL Variable Ins. Co. v. Bank of Utah" on Justia Law

Indiana Restorative Dentistry, P.C. (“IRD”) insured its dentist’s office under a policy issued by ProAssurance Indemnity Company, Inc. (“ProAssurance”) and procured through the Laven Insurance Agency, Inc. (“Laven”). After a fire destroyed the entire IRD office, IRD discovered that the contents coverage of its insurance policy was inadequate to cover its loss. IRD sued ProAssurance and Laven in tort and contract. The trial court granted partial summary judgment for ProAssurance, concluding that Laven had no duty to advise based on a special relationship, that Laven had no contractual duty to procure insurance that would have fully covered the fire losses, and that ProAssurance was not vicariously liable for the alleged acts or omissions of Laven. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) genuine issues of material fact remained regarding the existence of a special relationship between IRD and Laven and, consequently, a duty to advise; and (2) Laven had no duty to procure full coverage because there was no evidence showing a “meeting of the minds” on an implied contract requiring Laven to procure a policy that would cover all losses to office contents. View "Ind. Restorative Dentistry, P.C. v. Laven Ins. Agency, Inc." on Justia Law