After Appellant was treated for injuries at a medical center, Appellant filed a complaint against the Center, Phillips Hospital Corporation, and Exigence, LLC, alleging causes of action for negligence, breach of contract, and vicarious liability. Exigence had entered into an agreement with Phillips, under which Exigence had specifically contracted with the physician who treated Appellant to provide emergency medical services for the Center. The circuit court dismissed Appellant's complaint against Exigence based on the two-year statute of limitations of the Arkansas Medical Malpractice Act (AMMA). Appellant appealed, and Exigence cross-appealed. The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed on cross-appeal, holding (1) Appellant served Exigence outside the time limit in which to serve process, and while Appellant obtained an extension of time for service of process from the circuit court, he did so without demonstrating good cause and, as such, that service was defective; and (2) therefore, the circuit court erred in denying Exigence's motion to dismiss for insufficiency of process and insufficiency of service of process. View "Baylark v. Helena Reg'l Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

This case arose out of a home construction contract between the contractors, Big-D Signature Corporation and two LLCs. Morris Sterrett was the owner of the property on which the home was built. Big-D filed suit against the LLCs and Sterrett, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The LLCs and Sterrett counterclaimed, alleging breach of contract. The district court entered a partial summary adjudication that was later partially vacated. A jury trial then commenced, but a mistrial was declared. A partial summary judgment order followed. The remaining issues were disposed of by the district court under a sua sponte dismissal with prejudice. Both sides appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court did not err in granting partial summary judgment for Plaintiff; (2) the court did not err in finding that Sterrett was individually liable; (3) the court erred in dismissing the issue of whether Big-D could obtain relief under some of the prime contract change orders (PCCOs); (4) the court erred in finding some of the items in the PCCOs were consequential damages barred by the contract; and (5) the court correctly dismissed the damages claims of the LLCs and Sterrett. View "Big-D Signature Corp. v. Sterrett Props., LLC " on Justia Law

Plaintiff owned and operated a ranch with an 18,000 square-foot lodge. Defendant was a custom manufacturer of high-end wood flooring from whom Plaintiff brought wood flooring while building the lodge. After it was installed, the wood flooring began buckling and had to be replaced. Plaintiff sued Defendant for negligent misrepresentation, breach of an implied warranty of suitability for a particular purpose, and violation of the Montana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (MCPA). The jury returned a verdict in Defendant's favor on all of Plaintiff's claims. The district court then granted Defendant attorney fees as the prevailing party under the MCPA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion when it found good cause to amend the scheduling order to allow Defendant's late disclosure of an expert witness; and (2) did not err when it awarded Defendant attorney fees under the MCPA. View "B Bar J Ranch, LLC v. Carlisle Wide Plank Floors, Inc." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the FCC's issuance of an order requiring telecommunications carriers to make payments into a Universal Service Fund for subsidizing services for certain categories of consumers. At issue was what should happen to the intrastate portion of the fees that the customers paid to reimburse the carriers for the payments they made to the fund. The court held that the district court correctly decided that it lacked jurisdiction to decide the claims. Because the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the FCC's orders at all, it lacked jurisdiction to decide whether the orders were invalid because they were outside the jurisdictional authority of the agency. View "Self v. BellSouth Mobility, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

This case was before the Supreme Court a second time and concerned a business dispute between Rancho La Valencia, Inc. and Aquaplex, Inc. In the earlier appeal, the Court held that the evidence of fraudulent intent by Rancho in connection with the execution of a memorandum of settlement agreement was legally sufficient but that the evidence did not support damages to the level awarded by the trial court. On remand, the court of appeals remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial on the issue of damages. Rancho appealed, complaining that the court of appeals should have remanded the case for a new trial on both liability and damages, as Rancho requested in a motion for rehearing to the court of appeals. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that Tex. R. App. P. 44.1 required the court of appeals to remand for a new trial on both liability and damages. Remanded. View "Rancho La Valencia, Inc. v. Aquaplex, Inc." on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a suit by ExxonMobil Corporation against DSTJ, LLP and Milestone Operating, Inc. (collectively Milestone). After Milestone failed to answer, ExxonMobil obtained a default judgment. Milestone appealed, arguing that service on Donald Harlan - DSTJ's partner and Milestone Operating, Inc.'s director and registered agent - was defective, and that Milestone established the necessary elements set forth in Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc. to set aside the default judgment. The trial court denied the motion for new trial. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that Milestone failed to meet its burden to satisfy Craddock's first element. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that because the evidence in this case established that Defendants' failure to answer was no intentional or the result of conscious indifference, Defendants' motion for new trial could not be denied on the ground that Defendants failed to satisfy the first Craddock element. Remanded. View "Milestone Operating, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Corp." on Justia Law

Petitioner filed suit in superior court claiming that she and her son entered into an oral that granted her a life estate in certain property. Petitioner sought to enforce the oral agreement or, in the alternative, recover of a theory of quantum meruit. The superior court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The appeals court remanded for proceedings as to whether Petitioner should recover under a theory of quantum meruit. While the case was pending on remand, Petitioner filed a petition in the county court against the judge assigned to the matter, in both his individual and official capacities, and against the Commonwealth. Petitioner raised a number of claims concerning the judge's rulings and conduct, including an assertion that he had acted in an unlawful and biased manner. The single justice denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Petitioner's claims of judicial bias and declaratory judgment claims should have been addressed through the ordinary trial and appellate process; (2) the judge was absolutely immune from Petitioner's request for monetary damages; and (3) Petitioner's allegations of conspiracy were insufficient to overcome the judge's absolute immunity. View "Johnson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a motor vehicle collision involving Roger Linton and James Carey that resulted in Carey's death. At the time of the collision, Linton was driving a truck owned by Jonathan Jennings, for whom Linton worked as an independent contractor. Jennings's insurer, State Farm, filed a declaratory judgment action against Carey's Estate and Linton to determine whether it was responsible for liability coverage and obligated to defend and indemnify Linton for claims arising from the collision. The superior court entered a judgment in favor of State Farm, concluding that Linton was not an insured covered by Jennings's policy because his use of the truck was not within the scope of Jennings's consent. At issue on appeal was whether the superior court erred in its application of the minor deviation rule in determining that Linton's use of the truck exceeded the scope of Jennings's consent. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, clarified the applicable burdens associated with the minor deviation rule, and remanded for the superior court to apply the minor deviation rule as clarified. View "State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Estate of Carey" on Justia Law

Norman Budge and twenty-eight additional parties (collectively, Employees) filed a complaint for review of government action for the Town of Millinocket's (Town) amendments to its personnel policy originally adopted as a town ordinance. In the most recent amendment, the Town reduced its obligation for paying for the health insurance plan for its employees and established a new policy for the health insurance offered to retirees that resulted in the Town reducing its payment of the retirees' premiums. Employees alleged that, regardless of the policy language, this reduction was inconsistent with promises made to them either when they were hired or during their tenure with the Town. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of the Town. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the personnel policy did not create an enforceable contract between the Town and its employees; (2) the Town was not bound to pay Employees' retirement group hospitalization and life insurance premiums by virtue of promissory estoppel; and (3) the Town's reduction in benefits did not result in an unconstitutional taking. View "Budge v. Town of Millinocket" on Justia Law

Hospital purchased from Insurer a "builders risk" insurance policy which included a provision requiring Hospital to obtain Insurer's written consent before assigning a claim for an insured loss. Hospital contracted with Constructors for floors and subsurface work, which was later damaged. Hospital claimed a loss and sought recompense under the builders risk policy, but Insurer denied the claim. Hospital later assigned Constructors any claim or rights Hospital had against Insurer arising out of the insurance policy. Constructors, as Hospital's assignee, brought suit in federal court against Insurer seeking to recover payment due under the builder's risk policy. The Supreme Court granted the certification request of the federal court to answer a question of state law and concluded that, under Kentucky law, a clause in an insurance policy that requires the insured to obtain the insurer's prior written consent before assigning a claim for an insured loss under the policy is not enforceable or applicable to the assignment of a claim under the policy where the covered loss occurs before the assignment, and that such a clause would, under those circumstances, be void as against public policy. View "Wehr Constructors, Inc. v. Assurance Co. of Am." on Justia Law