Borrowers applied from a home mortgage loan from Lender. During the transaction, a loan officer made an incorrect statement about lien priority. Borrowers later filed breach of fiduciary and negligent misrepresentation claims against Lender, alleging that the junior status of Lender’s lien decreased the marketability and value of their home and exposed them to increased liability. The trial court granted Lender’s motion for summary judgment on all claims. The Court of Appeals concluded that material issues of fact barred summary judgment on Borrowers’ breach of fiduciary duty claim, reasoning that Lender’s assurance of a first priority lien on Borrowers’ new mortgage loan was an act beyond the scope of a normal debtor-creditor relationship. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment for Lender on both claims where no fiduciary duty existed and where Plaintiffs did not forecast evidence that they made a reasonable inquiry into the validity of the loan officer’s statements. View "Dallaire v. Bank of Am., N.A." on Justia Law

GE Plaintiffs filed suit against Worthington under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA), Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code 24.009(a), seeking to void transfers that Worthington received from the GE Plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest, allegedly with notice of the transfers' fraudulent nature. The jury found in favor of the GE Plaintiffs and the district court entered judgment for the amount of the transfers. The court concluded that the factual commonality in this case did not suffice to count the contractual dispute settlement against TUFTA's limit on recovery for a single avoidance "claim," or to render Citibank a joint tortfeasor for one-satisfaction rule purposes. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Worthington a settlement credit for the settlement proceeds that the GE Plaintiffs received from Citibank. The court rejected Worthington's argument that the district court erred as a matter of law in interpreting TUFTA's good faith defense as an objective standard. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "GE Capital Commercial, Inc., et al. v. Wright & Wright, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff purchased a new vehicle from Dealer that was subject to Manufacturer’s limited warranty. Plaintiff later filed a complaint against Manufacturer and Dealer (together, Defendants), alleging that the vehicle was defective and that Defendants failed to repair or remedy the defects under the warranty. Dealer demanded that Manufacturer reimburse Dealer for the attorney’s fees it incurred in defending against Plaintiff’s claims and indemnification for and liability incurred. Plaintiffs claims against Defendants were disposed of through summary judgment and voluntary dismissal. The judge also found that Dealer was not entitled to indemnificationt. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that because Plaintiff’s allegations alleged the fault or negligence of both Manufacturer and Dealer, Manufacturer did not have a duty to defend under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93B, 8(a). View "Ferreira v. Chrysler Group LLC" on Justia Law

After an oil drilling rig owned by BP Exploration & Production, Inc. and BP America Production Company (collectively, BP) sank of the Gulf Coast of Louisiana and caused a massive oil spill, Packagen, a manufacturer of packaging products, sought to sell containment boom to BP. Packagen began producing boom after the oil spill, but BP never paid for any of the boom manufactured by Packagen. Packagen filed a five-count complaint against BP in federal district court, invoking diversity jurisdiction and alleging various state-law claims. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of BP. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Packagen’s negligent and intentional misrepresentation claims, breach of contract claim, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claim, and promissory estoppel claim. View "Packgen v. BP Exploration & Prod., Inc." on Justia Law

Chrysler Group, LLC and plaintiff LaFontaine Saline Inc. (LaFontaine), an authorized Chrysler automobile dealer, entered into a Dealer Agreement in 2007, granting LaFontaine the non-exclusive right to sell Dodge vehicles from its location in Saline, Michigan, and defined LaFontaine’s Sales Locality as "the area designated in writing to [LaFontaine] by [Chrysler] from time to time as the territory of [LaFontaine’s] responsibility for the sale of [Chrysler, Jeep, and Dodge] vehicles, vehicle parts and accessories . . . ." This case centered on whether the 2010 amendment of the Motor Vehicle Dealer Act (MVDA) (expanding the relevant market area) from a six-mile radius to a nine-mile radius, applied retroactively. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that it did not. The Court therefore vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded this case to the Circuit Court for reinstatement of summary judgment in favor of Chrysler. View "LaFontaine Saline, Inc. v. Chrysler Group, LLC" on Justia Law

Choice filed suit against BancorpSouth for lost funds and BancorpSouth counterclaimed for attorney's fees. The court concluded that the loss of funds from Choice's account falls on Choice because there was no genuine dispute of fact as to whether BanCorpSouth's security procedures - which included password protection, daily transfer limits, device authentication, and dual control - were commercially reasonable; BancorpSouth met its burden of establishing that it accepted the payment order at issue in good faith; and BanCorpSouth complied with procedures or Choice's instructions. The court also concluded that the portion of the indemnification provision relating to attorney's fees was not inconsistent with Article 4A of the UCC and that BancorpSouth may seek attorney's fees from Choice under this provision. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to BancorpSouth, reversed the district court's dismissal of BancorpSouth's counterclaim on the pleadings, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Choice Escrow and Land Title v. BancorpSouth Bank" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Milwaukee County sheriff’s deputy, was injured while on duty by a motorist to whom she had just given directions and was allegedly helping to get back into the lane of moving traffic. Plaintiff sought coverage under her employer’s underinsured motorist policy, which pays sums owed by an underinsured tortfeasor to an insured person who is injured while “using an automobile” within the scope of her employment or authority. Plaintiff claimed that she was “using” the automobile that hit her because she was essentially controlling the vehicle. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the insurer. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding that Defendant was not using the vehicle at the time of her injury. View "Jackson v. Wis. County Mut. Ins. Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued several defendants in the Delaware Court of Chancery for alleged wrongdoing related to notes purchased by Plaintiff and issued by one of the defendants. Defendants moved to dismiss, claiming that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by a no-action clause contained in the indenture agreement governing Plaintiff’s notes. The Delaware Supreme Court remanded the case for the Court of Chancery for consideration of the issues under New York law. On remand, the Court of Chancery concluded that the majority of Plaintiff’s claims were not barred under the no-action clause and that dismissal and partial dismissal were warranted with respect to the remaining claims because only those claims arose under the indenture. In response to certified questions from the Delaware Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals concluded (1) a trust indenture’s no-action clause that specifically precludes enforcement of contractual claims arising under the indenture, but omits reference to “the Securities,” does not bar a securityholder’s independent common law or statutory claims; and (2) the Court of Chancery correctly found that the no-action clause in this case, which referred only to “this Indenture,” precluded enforcement only of contractual claims arising under the Indenture. View "Quadrant Structured Prods. Co., Ltd. v. Vertin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff entered into a financial brokerage agreement with Defendant providing that Plaintiff would serve as financial advisor and investment banker in the proposed sale of certain student loan assets owned by Defendant. After Defendant transferred certain distressed assets to a fund created by the Swiss National Bank as part of a 2008 bailout, Plaintiff demanded a commission pursuant to the agreement. Defendant refused to pay. Plaintiff subsequently commenced this action for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Supreme Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the financial crises and the bailout constituted an unforeseeable event that undermined the purpose of the agreement, which was “the introduction of [Defendant] by [Plaintiff] to a third party buyer.” The Appellate Division reversed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Plaintiffs’ causes of action were conclusively contradicted by the language of the parties’ contract, mandating dismissal of the complaint. View "Morpheus Capital Advisors, LLC v. UBS AG" on Justia Law

Defendant entered into a land installment contract that established the terms of a transfer from Plaintiffs to Defendant of a parcel of land. Defendant failed to make the payments required by the contract, and Plaintiffs commenced this action. Defendant argued that because the contract did not comply with 33 Me. Rev. Stat. 482(1) Plaintiffs were barred from obtaining relief. The district court entered a judgment of foreclosure against Defendant and ordered a writ of possession in favor of Plaintiffs, concluding that, even if the contract failed to comply with section 482(1), Plaintiffs would have had could obtain possession of the property through the forcible entry and detainer process. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the contract was enforceable because it was in substantial compliance with section 482(1); and (2) 14 Me. Rev. Stat. 6203-F does not require a court to order a public sale of property when ordering a foreclosure on a land installment contract. View "Thurston v. Galvin" on Justia Law