After Plaintiff obtained a judgment against Logs Unlimited, Inc., the corporation transferred its assets to Thomas Schramel, Schramel's daughter, and another corporation. Schramel was the sole shareholder, director, and officer of both corporations. Proceeds from the transfer were used to pay some of Logs Unlimited's creditors, but Plaintiff was not among the creditors paid. Plaintiffs sued Logs Unlimited, claiming that it had fraudulently transferred its assets. The circuit court set aside the transfer, concluding that Logs Unlimited fraudulently transferred its assets to prevent satisfaction of Plaintiff's judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, upon consideration of the relevant factors, the transfer was fraudulent under S.D. Codified Laws 54-8A-4(a)(1). View "Nielsen v. Logs Unlimited, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought a lawsuit against the company that marketed the anti-obesity drug combination known as Fen-Phen. Plaintiffs claims were transferred from Kentucky to a similar action pending in Alabama, where Plaintiffs were represented by Attorneys. After Plaintiffs' claims were settled, Plaintiffs brought this action against Attorneys, claiming that Attorneys wrongfully withheld from each Plaintiff a substantial portion of the settlement award. The circuit court dismissed the action, concluding that Plaintiffs' complaint was untimely filed under the applicable statute of limitations. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiffs were not prejudiced by the court of appeals' affirmation of a summary judgment dismissing the claims of all fifty Plaintiffs where the motion before the trial court related to only one particular plaintiff; (2) the court of appeals erred in applying the Alabama statute of limitations rather than Kentucky's, but Appellants' suit was untimely under the applicable Kentucky statutes; (3) Plaintiffs' claims of misrepresentation were subject to the one-year limitation period for professional service malpractice rather than the general five-year limitation period; and (4) the application of the statutes of limitations was not an issue to be resolved by a jury. View "Abel v. Austin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a school, was sued by two of the school's donors who sought a return of a monetary gift to the school, claiming that the gift had been induced by misrepresentations. The case settled, and Plaintiff sought defense costs and indemnity under a directors and officers liability insurance policy issued by Defendant. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendant based on a provision in the policy excluding from coverage any losses involving any matter disclosed in connection with "Note 8" of the school's financial statement. Note 8 set forth a description of the gift. Plaintiff appealed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because the language of the policy clearly excluded coverage "in any way involving" the disputed gift, Plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of coverage. View "Clark Sch. for Creative Learning, Inc. v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In 2000, the Schuchmans purchased homeowner’s insurance from State Auto to insure a residence in Junction City, Illinois. About 10 years later, a fire severely damaged the insured house and the Schuchmans made a claim against the homeowner’s policy. After a lengthy investigation, State Auto denied the claim on the basis that the Schuchmans were not residing on the “residence premises,” as that term is defined by the policy, and were maintaining a residence other than at the “residence premises,” in violation of the policy’s Special Provisions. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of State Auto. The Seventh Circuit reversed, agreeing that the term “residence premises” is ambiguous and should be liberally construed in favor of coverage. View "Schuchman v. State Auto Prop. & Cas.Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Mastercraft Floor Covering, filed a lawsuit against Charlotte Flooring (CFI), a North Carolina corporation, in Oklahoma. Mastercraft alleged that CFI had hired it to install carpet in a North Carolina casino, but that after the work was completed, CFI failed to pay for the labor, services, and materials. CFI entered a special entry of appearance to object to Oklahoma having jurisdiction to decide the cause because CFI lacked the requisite minimum contacts to be sued in the State of Oklahoma. The trial judge, determined that Mastercraft failed to prove that CFI had sufficient minimum contacts to permit Oklahoma to exercise jurisdiction over CFI without offending conventional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Mastercraft appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that because of the totality of contacts with the Oklahoma-based corporation, the trial court had personal jurisdiction. View "Mastercraft Floor Covering, Inc. v. Charlotte Flooring, Inc." on Justia Law

C.R. Weaver formed Mikart Transport, LLC in January 2011. At that time, the articles of organization named Weaver and Michael Smith as members or managers. In March 2011, Smith submitted a credit application with Tri-County Implement, Inc. After Smith failed to pay Tri-County for work it performed on two vehicles, including a Volvo semi-truck titled in Weaver's name, Tri-County refused to release the Volvo from its possession pursuant to its asserted agisters' lien on the vehicle. Weaver subsequently filed a complaint against Tri-County. In response, Tri-County filed a counterclaim against Weaver and a third-party complaint against Mikart. The district court entered judgment against Mikart, ordering it to pay for the work it performed, and awarded Tri-County attorney fees and costs. The court also held Mikart, Smith, and Weaver jointly and severally liable for these amounts. The Supreme Court reversed the portion of the district court's imposition of personal liability on Weaver for the work performed on the two vehicles, as there was no basis to hold Weaver individually liable for the obligations of Mikart to Tri-County. Remanded. View "Tri-County Implement, Inc. v. Weaver" on Justia Law

Bank and Lumber Company had business and financial relationships with Sawmill. A few years into its operation, Sawmill began experiencing serious financial difficulties. Sawmill defaulted on approximately $1.4 million in loan obligations to Bank and owed Lumber Company approximately $900,000. Proceedings were initiated in bankruptcy court and district court. While the cases were pending, Sawmill was destroyed by fire. Bank recovered approximately $980,000 from Sawmill's insurance proceeds. In a subsequent case between Bank and Lumber Company, the jury determined that neither Bank nor Lumber Company was entitled to recover damages from the other. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit into evidence a particular letter written by the Bank president. View "H.E. Simpson Lumber Co. v. Three Rivers Bank of Mont." on Justia Law

Bristol Bay Productions, LLC brought claims against author Clive Cussler in California for fraud based on allegations that he had misrepresented his readership numbers. Bristol Bay alleged Cussler told it he had sold over 100 million books when the figure was, in fact, closer to 40 million. According to Bristol Bay, it reasonably relied on those numbers when it purchased the film rights to Cussler's books and produced an ultimately unsuccessful movie based on one of them (Sahara), with resulting damages of more than $50 million. In a special verdict, a California jury found Cussler misrepresented his readership figures and that Bristol Bay reasonably relied on those misrepresentations, but that Bristol Bay's reliance on those misrepresentations did not cause its damages. Bristol Bay also sued Cussler's literary agent and publishers for fraud in Colorado based on the same allegations asserted in the California suit. Following Bristol Bay's unsuccessful appeal of the California action, the trial court dismissed Bristol Bay's Colorado action on issue preclusion grounds for failing to state a claim. The court of appeals affirmed. Bristol Bay appealed the Colorado courts' dismissal. After review, the Colorado Supreme Court concluded Bristol Bay's Colorado action was indeed barred on issue preclusion grounds. However, the Colorado Court held the trial court erred by dismissing Bristol Bay's Colorado action without converting the defendants' motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. View "Bristol Bay Prods., LLC v. Lampack" on Justia Law

Buyer purchased property located within a homeowners association. Buyer, who already owned other lots within the association, later canceled the contract with Sellers because he had not received mandatory disclosures from Sellers pursuant to the Maryland Homeowners Association Act, which requires that notice be given to "a member of the public who intends to occupy or rent the lot for residential purposes." Sellers sued Buyer for breach of contract, contending that Buyer was not a "member of the public" under the statute because Buyer, as a property owner in the association, already had access to the homeowners association policies and thus did not require disclosures making him aware of the relevant applicable rules and policies. The circuit court granted Buyer's motion to dismiss, and the court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) Buyer was a "member of the public" for purposes of the statute; but (2) the circuit court erred in granting Buyer's motion to dismiss because Sellers presented a justiciable issue of equitable estoppel based on Buyer's affirmative refusal to receive the requirement documents and information proffered to him by Sellers. View "Lipitz v. Hurwitz" on Justia Law

After Dolly Romprey was involved in an accident, Romprey and her husband (Plaintiffs) sought to recover from their insurer (Defendant) under the uninsured/underinsured motorist provisions of their automobile insurance policy. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant, concluding that Plaintiffs' action was time-barred under the relevant statute of limitations, and the tolling provision did not apply in this case because Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the threshold requirement that their claim involved an underinsured vehicle. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a genuine issue of material fact existed concerning whether Plaintiffs had met the statutory tolling provisions of the relevant statute; and (2) therefore, the trial court erred in requiring Plaintiffs to submit evidence that they had met the requirements of the statutory tolling provision. Remanded. View "Romprey v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am." on Justia Law