These appeals arose out of LJL's exercise of its contractual option to purchase Pitcairn's ownership stake in a jointly owned high-rise luxury residential building in New York City, after which the parties pursued an arbitration to determine the value of the property. Both parties subsequently appealed from the district court's judgment. In LJL's appeal, the court agreed with its contention that the arbitrator's exclusion of Pitcairn's hearsay exhibits was within the arbitrator's authorized discretion and, therefore, vacated the district court's order overturning the arbitrator's determination of the Stated Value. The court agreed with the district court's conclusion that the arbitrator acted in accordance with the terms of the arbitration agreement in refusing to determine the Purchase Price and, therefore, remanded with instructions to confirm the arbitration award in its entirety. In Pitcairn's appeal, the court found no error in the district court's dismissal of Pitcairn's claims for breach of fiduciary duties and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "LJL 33rd Street Associates, LLC v. Pitcairn Properties Inc." on Justia Law

Grange Insurance Company of Michigan sought a declaratory judgment regarding its responsibility under a no-fault insurance policy issued to Edward Lawrence to reimburse Farm Bureau General Insurance Company of Michigan for personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits it paid after the death of his daughter Josalyn Lawrence following an automobile accident. The accident occurred while Josalyn's mother, Laura Rosinski, was driving a vehicle insured by Farm Bureau. Lawrence and Rosinski were divorced at the time of the accident but shared joint legal custody of the child. Rosinski had primary physical custody. Farm Bureau sought partial reimbursement of the PIP benefits it paid, arguing that Grange was in the same order of priority because Josalyn was domiciled in both parents' homes under MCL 500.3114(1). Farm Bureau counterclaimed. The circuit court granted Farm Bureau's motion for summary judgment; Grange appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Automobile Club Insurance Association (ACIA) also sought a declaratory judgment to recover PIP benefits from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company under similar circumstances as in "Lawrence." Sarah Campanelli, the daughter of Francis Campaneli and Tina Taylor, died following an automobile accident. At the time of the accident, Sarah's parents, Francis Campanelli and Tina Taylor, were divorced and shared joint legal custody of Sarah; Campanelli had physical custody. Soon after the divorce, the family court modified the divorce judgment, allowing Campanelli to move and to change Sarah's domicile to Tennessee. When the accident occurred eleven years later, Sarah was staying in Michigan to attend school after a summer visit with her mother. ACIA claimed that State Farm was the responsible insurer and that that Sarah was not domiciled in Michigan, therefore it was not responsible for Sarah's PIP benefits. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm; the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that there was a question of fact as to the child's domicile. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the "Grange" case for entry of summary judgment in favor of Grange; the Court reversed and remanded the "ACIA" case for entry of summary judgment in favor of ACIA. View "Grange Insurance Company of Michigan v. Lawrence" on Justia Law

Brent Harris sued Auto Club Insurance Association (ACIA), seeking to recover a duplicate payment for medical expenses incurred as the result of a motorcycle-motor vehicle accident, which had been paid directly to providers by his health insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM). Harris claimed ACIA was required to pay him directly the same amounts paid by BCBSM to any healthcare provider for the medical expenses. ACIA filed a third-party complaint against BCBSM and Harris filed an amended complaint naming BCBSM as a defendant. The circuit court granted summary judgment to BCBSM and ACIA, concluding that because ACIA's policy was uncoordinated, ACIA was the primary insurer, and that the BCBSM certificate coordinated benefits with the no-fault policy. The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court, concluding that the BCBSM certificate did not coordinate with ACIA's no-fault policy. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed in part and reinstated the trial court's judgment: In this case, the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that Harris was entitled to double recovery; Harris was not obligated to pay his medical expenses because, as a matter of law, ACIA was liable for Harris's PIP benefits. ACIA was liable regardless of when the expenses were incurred and BCBSM's certificate that stated it would not cover those services for which Harris legally did not have to pay precluded Harris from receiving double recovery for those medical expenses. View "Harris v. Auto Club Insurance Association" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a putative consumer class action suit against DirecTV and Best Buy, alleging violations of California's consumer protection laws. The arbitration agreement at issue in this instance was a customer service agreement between DirecTV and individuals who believed they purchased DirecTV equipment from Best Buy stores. AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion held that Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 2, preempted the State of California's rule rendering unenforceable arbitration provisions in consumer contracts that waive collective or class action proceedings. The court concluded that the arbitration agreement in this case was enforceable under Concepcion and, therefore, the district court did not err in compelling plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims against DirecTV. The court concluded, however, that plaintiffs were not required to arbitrate their claims with Best Buy. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Murphy v. DirecTV, Inc." on Justia Law

In 1999, I-4 leased Florida land to Lazy Days, with an option to purchase, prohibiting assignment without written consent. In 2008, Lazy Days notified I-4 of its intention to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and assign the lease to LDRV. The parties negotiated a settlement agreement in 2009. I-4 consented to assignment. Lazy Days agreed not to “argue against the Bankruptcy Court abstaining from consideration of Lease interpretation issues ... except to the extent necessary in connection with the assumption and assignment of the Lease.” The agreement provided that “there is no intent to, nor is the Lease modified in any respect,” but did not state whether the purchase option survived. The Bankruptcy Court confirmed a reorganization plan incorporating the agreement and closed the case in 2010. In 2011, LDRV attempted to exercise the option. The parties each filed state court lawsuits and LDRV moved to reopen in Bankruptcy Court, which held that the anti-assignment provision was unenforceable and that refusal to honor the option violated the agreement. The district court vacated. The Third Circuit reversed, holding that the Bankruptcy Court properly exercised jurisdiction; the agreement’s exception applied because the proceeding was “in connection with ... assignment of the Lease.” The court rejected arguments that the parties agreed to waive application of 11 U.S.C. 365(f)(3) and that the Bankruptcy Court committed an unconstitutional taking and denied I-4 due process. View "In Re: Lazy Days' RV Ctr., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sought to open a Victoria's Secret franchise and sought assistance from Richard Domingo, an employee of Rekomdiv International. At the recommendation of Domingo, Plaintiff retained the law firm of Venable, LLP to assist him in establishing a business relationship with Victoria's Secret. Plaintiff paid Venable a $400,000 retainer fee, and paid $225,000 to Rekomdiv. Plaintiff later discovered Victoria's Secret franchise was not available. Plaintiff sued Rekomdiv and Domingo for breach of contract and dolo. The jury found in favor of Plaintiff and assessed damages in the amount of $625,000. In the meantime, Plaintiff sued Venable, and the parties settled. The court later found that it could not offset the damages award in the Rekomdiv suit by the Venable settlement amount. While their appeal was pending in this matter, Rekomdiv and Domingo filed a legal malpractice suit against Lamboy, their trial counsel. The district court dismissed the complaint against Lamboy. The First Circuit Court of Appeals (1) affirmed the district court's denial of offset of the damages award, as offset was not required; and (2) affirmed the court's dismissal of the legal malpractice suit, holding that the allegations in the complaint failed to establish the causation element necessary to make out a plausible legal malpractice claim. View "Portugues-Santana v. Rekomdiv Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Hurticene Hardaway sued Wayne County in circuit court seeking a declaratory judgment, and claiming breach of contract and promissory estoppel in relation to the denial of certain lifetime benefits granted to certain former County employees. Plaintiff worked in the County's office of corporation counsel. The trial court concluded that due to language in the Wayne County Commission Resolution 94-903, plaintiff did not qualify for the benefits. The trial court ultimately granted the County's motion for summary judgment, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the language in question was ambiguous. In its review of the resolution in question, the Supreme Court concluded its language was not ambiguous, therefore affirming the trial court's interpretation and judgment. View "Hardaway v. Wayne County" on Justia Law

Elliot, which provides construction and maintenance services, owns and leases bucket trucks. In 1996, Elliot entered into a lease with TECO, a manufacturer of such trucks, agreeing agreed to hold TECO harmless from liability arising from injuries resulting from use, operation, or transportation of the vehicle or its location or condition. In 2000, Large was injured while operating a truck, which his employer, Elliot, had leased from TECO. Large sued TECO. TECO’s successor in interest (Mobile) filed a third-party complaint against Elliot, seeking defense and indemnification pursuant to the lease. Mobile later settled with Large without Elliot’s participation, leaving the third-party complaint against Elliot as the only outstanding issue. After a change in Virginia law, Mobile again moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted, holding Elliot responsible to defend and indemnify Mobile. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting Elliot’s argument that a later invoice superseded the terms of the lease, eliminating Elliot’s duty to defend and indemnify except in the case that Elliot violated obligations under the invoice by failing to either adequately train Large in the use of the truck or to provide him with copies of the truck’s operation and maintenance manuals. View "Large v. Mobile Tool Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

A plaintiff who was injured in an accident sought PIP benefits from an insurance carrier. The Superior Court applied Delaware's current three-part test and analyzed: (1) "whether the vehicle was an 'active accessory' in causing the injury," (2) "whether there was an act of independent significance that broke the causal link between use of the vehicle and the injuries inflicted," and (3) "whether the vehicle was used for transportation purposes." After concluding that the insured vehicle was not used for transportation purposes, the court granted the insurance carrier's motion for summary judgment. Upon reexamination of the statutory framework for PIP coverage, the Supreme Court concluded that the test's "transportation purposes" element should have been rejected. Therefore, the Court reversed the Superior Court judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Kelty v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In 2001, Union Oil Company of California entered into a contract to sell its oil to Tesoro Alaska Company. Under the contract the Tesoro took title at the North Slope, but agreed to use a pipeline company associated with Union to transport oil through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. The price per barrel was calculated as the West Coast market price less marine transport and pipeline tariff. The contract made no mention of whether the pipeline tariff was tied to the ultimate destination of the oil. At the time, the interstate and intrastate pipeline tariffs were the same. Tesoro shipped the oil to an in-state refinery and paid the tariff to the pipeline company. Union subtracted the tariff amount from the market price of the oil less marine transport and sent invoices to the buyer. Meanwhile, Tesoro successfully challenged the intrastate tariff as unjust and unreasonable and the pipeline company issued a refund, including 10.5% interest. Union claimed that it was entitled to the tariff refund under the contract. The superior court, on motions for summary judgment, awarded the principal amount of the refund to Union and the interest to Tesoro. Both parties appealed. Upon review of the dispute, the Supreme Court held that the contract's pricing term was a netback price to the Los Angeles market referencing the interstate tariff. Accordingly, the Court reversed the superior court's grant of summary judgment to Union and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of Tesoro. View "Tesoro Alaska Company v. Union Oil Company of California" on Justia Law