A former teacher, Terum Hopper, filed a wrongful termination action against the Jefferson County Board of Education. The Board moved for summary judgment, arguing that Hopper’s tort claims were barred by governmental immunity and that Hopper was required to pursue the administrative remedies set forth in Ky. Rev. Stat. 161.790 to challenge the termination of his employment contract. The trial court granted the summary judgment motion as to the governmental immunity claims but denied the motion as to the breach of contract claims, declaring that Hopper was entitled to file suit on these claims rather than pursue administrative remedies. The Board sought a writ prohibiting the lower court from trying Hopper’s breach of contract claims. The court of appeals denied the writ, concluding that the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction over the claims and that the Board had an adequate remedy. The Supreme Court reversed and granted the writ, holding that because Hopper filed an action in the circuit court without first exhausting the administrative remedies provided in section 161.790, the circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear his claim. View "Jefferson County Bd. of Educ. v. Hon. Brian C. Edwards" on Justia Law

Appellants, two employees of the University of Kentucky, sued the University, claiming that the University breached contractual obligations to provide them with benefits under a long-term disability compensation program adopted by the University. The circuit courts denied the University’s motions to dismiss on grounds of sovereign immunity. The court of appeals reversed both circuit court decisions, holding that the University was entitled to governmental immunity. Appellants appealed, arguing that the documents of the University establishing the long-term disability compensation program constituted a written contract falling within the waiver of governmental immunity set forth in Ky. Rev. Stat. 45A.245. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellants’ claims were not based upon a written contract with the University, and therefore, sovereign immunity remained a valid affirmative defense under the circumstances of this case. View "Furtula v. Univ. of Ky." on Justia Law

Some members of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters (Union), an unincorporated association of carpenters, volunteered to help build a barn for Birchwood Conservation Center, a non-profit organization, but failed to complete the barn. Birchwood filed a complaint alleging breach of contract or promissory estoppel. The trial court dismissed Birchwood’s action for lack of standing. Birchwood then filed an amended complaint substituting four new party plaintiffs who did possess standing. The trial court dismissed the new plaintiffs’ claims, concluding that the Union could not be sued because it was a voluntary association. The court of appeals reversed, determining that the Union waived the defense of lack of capacity to be sued. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal of the case, holding that, under the facts of this case, the Union did not waive the defense of lack of capacity to be sued. View "United Brotherhood of Carpenters v. Birchwood Conservancy" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former independent commissioned sales representative for Mor/Ryde International, Inc., sued Mor/Ryde for unpaid commissions under a contract between the parties. One count of Plaintiff’s complaint alleged violations of the Indiana Sales Representative Act. The trial court concluded that the Sales Representative Act applied to Mor/Ryde’s contract with Plaintiff and ruled that exemplary damages under the Sales Representative Act are subject to statutory restrictions on awards of punitive damages. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Punitive Damages Act applies only to discretionary common-law punitive damages awards, not statutory damage awards like the Sales Representative Act; and (2) therefore, treble damages under the Sales Representative Act are not subject to the Punitive Damages Act. View "Andrews v. Mor/Ryde Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

MMS Construction & Paving, L.L.C. entered into a subcontract with Head, Inc. to pave asphalt runway shoulders at Altus Air Force Base in Oklahoma. The project was delayed and MMS, expressing concern that Head had not been making agreed payments, quit the job. MMS also complained that completing the job would be more expensive than it originally believed because certain requirements were being imposed that Head said would be waived. After MMS quit, Head finished the job, relying on other subcontractors. MMS sued Head on state-law claims of breach of contract, tortious breach of contract, quantum meruit, and misrepresentation, and brought a claim under the federal Miller Act on Head’s surety bond for the project. Head filed a counterclaim, alleging that MMS breached the contract. After a jury trial, MMS was awarded damages and attorney fees. Head filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial, both of which the district court denied. Head appealed, arguing: (1) the evidence at trial was insufficient to show that Head breached the contract; (2) if there was a breach, it was not material; (3) an Oklahoma statute limited MMS’s breach-of-contract damages to the amount unpaid plus interest; (4) the evidence was not sufficient to establish MMS’s alleged lost-profits damages for breach of contract; (5) MMS did not present sufficient evidence to prove misrepresentation or any damages from misrepresentation, MMS waived the misrepresentation claim, and the award of misrepresentation damages duplicated the award of damages for breach of contract; and (6) MMS was not entitled to attorney fees from Head because the Miller Act does not allow recovery of those fees. Upon careful consideration of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit reversed damages award based on the misrepresentation claim because the jury’s award was not supported by any evidence at trial. On all other issues, the Court affirmed. View "MMS Construction & Paving v. Head, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from a fraud, breach of contract, and breach of warranty action brought by April Beguesse, Inc. (ABI) against defendants Kenneth Rammell, the estate of Christa Beguesse, and Christa Beguesse, Inc. (CBI), and a breach of contract counterclaim brought by CBI against ABI. The parties went to trial and the jury returned a verdict in favor of ABI on all claims. Defendants moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or in the alternative a new trial. The district court granted Defendants’ motion for JNOV on the finding of fraud by Christa’s estate and dismissed that claim. The district court also granted Defendants a new trial on the issue of damages unless ABI accepted a remittitur for damages assessed against CBI only. The district court denied Defendants’ motion on the remaining claims of breach of contract, breach of warranty, and fraud. ABI accepted the remittitur. Defendants appealed the district court’s denial of their motion. Defendants also sought reversal of the district court’s judgment or in the alternative a new trial on their counterclaim. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "April Beguesse, Inc. v. Rammell" on Justia Law

Appellants Heritage Healthcare of Ridgeway, LLC, Uni-Health Post-Acute Care - Tanglewood, LLC (Tanglewood), and UHS-Pruitt Corporation (collectively, Appellants) ask this Court to reverse the circuit court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration in this wrongful death and survival action involving Appellants' allegedly negligent nursing home care. Tanglewood is a skilled nursing facility located in Ridgeway, owned and controlled by Appellants. In January 2007, Tanglewood and Respondent Darlene Dean entered into a nursing home residency agreement in which Tanglewood assumed responsibility for the care of Respondent's mother, Louise Porter (the patient). The same day, Respondent signed a separate, voluntary arbitration agreement. The patient did not sign either the residency agreement or the Agreement on her own behalf, although she was competent at the time of her admission to Tanglewood. Moreover, Respondent did not have a health care power of attorney empowering her to sign on the patient's behalf. In 2009, the patient fell three separate times within a ten day period, fracturing her hip in the third fall. Over the next two months, the patient underwent two hip surgeries; however, due to complications following the surgeries, the patient died on September 30, 2009. In late 2011, Respondent (acting in her capacity as personal representative of her mother's estate) filed a Notice of Intent (NOI) to file a medical malpractice suit against Appellants, as well as an expert affidavit in support of her NOI. Respondent also alleged claims for survival and wrongful death. In lieu of filing an answer to the complaint, Appellants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (6), SCRCP, or, in the alternative, a motion to compel arbitration and stay the litigation. Relying on "Grant v. Magnolia Manor-Greenwood, Inc.," (678 S.E.2d 435 (2009)), the circuit court invalidated the Agreement in its entirety and refused to compel arbitration between the parties. Appellants filed a motion to reconsider, which the circuit court denied. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Respondent's argument that Appellants' waived their right to enforce the Agreement was without merit. On remand, the Supreme Court mandated that the circuit court consider her remaining arguments (concerning Respondent's authority to sign the Agreement and whether there was a meeting of the minds between the parties) prior to deciding whether to compel arbitration between the parties. View "Dean v. Heritage Healthcare" on Justia Law

In January 2007, the Bank of Idaho made two construction loans to developers who planned to construct a fourplex on each of two adjoining lots in Idaho Falls. The bank loaned one sum of money to build a fourplex on Lot 1 and another sum for a fourplex on Lot 2. The bank secured a separate policy of title insurance for each lot that was issued by the predecessor of First American Title Insurance Company. Each policy included an endorsement that the parties understood would insure against loss or damage that the bank might sustain by reason of a multifamily residence not being constructed on the lot. After discussion with representatives of the city, the developers changed their original plans and built both fourplexes on Lot 2 and built a parking lot with storm water retention and landscaping on Lot 1. The developers later defaulted on their loans, and the bank foreclosed on both deeds of trust. At the foreclosure sale, the bank acquired each lot by making a full credit bid on all amounts due and owing on the note secured by the deed of trust. In 2010, the bank submitted a claim under the title policy issue with respect to Lot 1 to recover under the endorsement. The insurance company rejected the claim and the bank filed suit to recover under the policy. The district court granted the insurance company’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed this action. The bank then appealed. The Supreme Court concluded after its review that the district court erred in holding that the title insurance company had no liability under the policy. The endorsement provided that "[t]he Company hereby insures the owner of the indebtedness secured by the insured mortgage against loss or damage which the insured shall sustain by reason of the failure of [a multifamily residence to be built on Lot 1]." The endorsement insured against "loss or damage" that the bank argued was the failure of the multifamily residence to be constructed on the lot. It did not define what constituted "loss or damage." Subsections of the pertinent indemnity clause stated limits on the insurance company's liability, but it did not define loss or damage. Accordingly, the district court was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Bank of Idaho v. First American Title" on Justia Law

Saint Alphonsus Diversified Care, Inc. (and others) formed a general partnership named MRI Associates. The parties executed a written partnership agreement (effective April 1985). The primary purpose of the partnership was to acquire and operate diagnostic and therapeutic devices, equipment, and accessories, beginning with a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner. MRI Associates and others formed two limited partnerships. One was named "MRI Limited Partnership," and it owned and operated an MRI scanner located on the hospital campus of Saint Alphonsus; the other limited partnership was named "MRI Mobile Limited Partnership," and it owned and operated mobile MRI scanners. For decades, a group of radiologists known as Gem State Radiologists had interpreted medical images pursuant to a contract that gave them the exclusive right to serve the radiological needs of patients of Saint Alphonsus. After the formation of MRI Associates, they interpreted MRI scans performed at MRI Center. In 1998, the Radiologists began planning to construct and operate an outpatient facility in Boise that was located away from the hospital. There were negotiations among the Radiologists, Saint Alphonsus, and MRI Associates to have one medical imaging entity, but those negotiations were unsuccessful. There was evidence that Saint Alphonsus was negotiating against MRI Associates with the Radiologists. In 1999, the Radiologists formed Intermountain Medical Imaging, LLC, (“IMI”), and a month later opened their facility. In 1998, Saint Alphonsus began negotiating with the Radiologists to partner with them in the imaging center. In 2001, Saint Alphonsus became a member of IMI. In 2002, IMI opened another facility in Meridian. In 2004, Saint Alphonsus gave notice to MRI Associates that it would dissociate from the partnership effective on April 1, 2004. Under the partnership agreement, Saint Alphonsus could not compete with MRI Associates for a period of one year. Saint Alphonsus then filed suit seeking to recover the value of its partnership interest from MRI Associates, and MRI Associates responded by filing a multi-count counterclaim and claims against third parties. The third-party claims were ultimately dismissed. The jury found Saint Alphonsus liable on all causes of action, and MRI Associates was awarded a judgment in the sum of $36.3 million. That judgment was vacated on appeal, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. The case was again tried to a jury. The district court submitted four claims for relief to the jury: breach of contract, intentional interference with a prospective economic advantage, breach of fiduciary duty, and civil conspiracy. The jury found in favor of the MRI Entities on each of the claims. Saint Alphonsus appealed, and the MRI Entities cross-appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "St. Alphonsus Diversified Care, Inc. v. MRI Associates, LLP" on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of a contract dispute between 3D and MVM. On appeal, 3D argued that the district court had discretion to award prejudgment interest under Virginia law. As an initial matter, the court accepted, without deciding, the parties' assertion that abuse of discretion is the appropriate standard of review. Applying that standard, the court concluded that 3D's argument that the district court had discretion to award prejudgment interest in this instance failed as a matter of law; there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to change its earlier ruling after it had a more fulsome opportunity to consider the relevant Virginia law; and the district court did not err in concluding that the parties did not reach an agreement to submit the issue of prejudgment interest to the court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "3D Global Solutions, Inc. v. MVM, Inc." on Justia Law