Plaintiffs Terry and Susan Brown purchased land adjacent to Defendant James Hanson. The neighbors signed a well-and-road easement agreement, which was recorded with the County Register of Deeds. Believing that the Browns had violated the terms of the agreement, Mr. Hanson filed a letter "rescinding" the agreement with the Register of Deeds. The Browns sued Mr. Hanson, and the trial court ruled that a rescission was not the appropriate remedy for a breach of the easement. Mr. Hanson appealed that decision, and the appellate and Supreme Courts affirmed it. The case was remanded back to the trial court for other issues, one of which was that the Browns alleged Mr. Hanson slandered their title by filing his "rescission" letter with the Register of Deeds. Furthermore, that letter created a cloud on the Browns' title, which the Browns claimed interfered with their contract to sell the property to a third party. The trial court entered a judgment in the Browns' favor. Mr. Hanson again appealed. The Supreme Court found that the trial court did not err in finding Mr. Hanson slandered the Browns' title and tortiously interfered with their sales contract. The Court remanded the case for the redetermination of attorney's fees.

Appellant Walnut Street Associates (WSA) provides insurance brokerage services and helps employers obtain health insurance for their employees. Appellee Brokerage Concepts, Inc. (BCI) is a third party administrator of employee benefit plans. Procacci retained BCI as administrator of its insurance plans, and BCI paid commissions to WSA based on premiums paid by Procacci. In 2005, Procacci requested BCI reduce its costs, but BCI would not meet Procacciâs proposal. Procacci then notified BCI that it would take its business elsewhere. BCI asked Procacci to reconsider, and in the process, disclosed to Procacci how much it paid to WSA as its broker. The amount was higher than Procacci believed WSA had been earning, but there was no dispute that BCIâs statements about WSAâs compensation were true. As a result of BCIâs letter, Procacci terminated its contract with WSA. WSA sued BCI alleging that BCI tortiously interfered with the WSA/Procacci contract by disclosing the amount of WSAâs compensation. BCI argued that it could not be liable for tortious interference because what it said was true, or otherwise justified and privileged. At trial, the jury found that BCI did interfere in the WSA/Procacci contract. BCI appealed, and the appellate court reversed the trial courtâs judgment. The appellate court adopted a section of the Restatement of Torts, which said that truth is a defense to a claim of tortious interference. WSA maintained that the Restatement was not applicable according to Pennsylvania law. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and adopted the Restatement defense that truth is a defense to claims of tortious interference with contractual relations. The Court affirmed the decision of the appellate court.

This appeal challenged the small employer group health coverage act (Act), which establishes requirements for insurance carriers to offer health insurance benefit plans to small employers in Michigan. Priority Health sought a declaratory judgment from the Office of Financial and Insurance Services (OFIS) so that it could allocate a small portion of insurance premiumsâ costs to employers, lessening the financial burden on employees. Priority Health would not renew contracts with employers who did not agree to pay a portion of the premiums. Both the Court of Appeals and the Commissioner of the Office of Financial and Insurance Services (OFIS) concluded that âminimum employer contribution provisionsâ are inconsistent with the Act. They reasoned that an employerâs failure to pay a minimum percentage of its employeesâ premiums is not among the reasons in the Act that a carrier can use to refuse to renew an insurance plan. The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court and OFISâ interpretation of the Act. The Court found that just because the Michigan Legislature did not include an employerâs refusal to pay according to a minimum contribution provision as among the reasons for not renewing a contract for benefits, the [Priority Health] provision was unreasonable or inconsistent with the Act. In general, âunless a provision directly conflicts with the enumerated reasons [of the Act], it may be included in a plan so long as it is reasonable and not inconsistent.â The Court remanded the case to the OFIS for further proceedings.

A division of New Jersey's Department of Treasury purchased $300 million in preferred stock issued by the defendant, which later asked New Jersey to convert its preferred shares to common stock. New Jersey agreed, if the terms of conversion were as favorable as terms governing the exchange of other stockholders' preferred shares. Defendant agreed and in July 2008 the parties entered into a share exchange agreement with a forum selection clause providing that "exclusive jurisdiction . . . shall lie in the appropriate courts of the State [of] New Jersey." The state sued for breach and the defendant sought to remove the case to federal court. The district court held that the agreement waived the right to remove the pending litigation to the federal district courts in New Jersey. The Third Circuit affirmed, stating that federal courts are in the states, but not "of" the states.

Plaintiff filed a complaint for breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, and breach of contract against defendants, an attorney and his law firm, where the attorney agreed to represent plaintiff in its effort to obtain approval of a redevelopment project, the attorney terminated the representation about two years later, and then the attorney became involved in a campaign to thwart the same redevelopment project by soliciting signatures on a referendum petition to overturn the city council's approval of the project. At issue was whether the court of appeals properly found that plaintiff's claims arose from protected activity in violation of the anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation ("anti-SLAPP") statute, Code Civ. Proc., 425.16, and whether plaintiff had failed to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on them. The court reversed the court of appeals and held that, based on the respective showings of the parties, plaintiff's claims for breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, and breach of contract possessed at least minimal merit within the meaning of the anti-SLAP statute.

Plaintiff and defendant, investment trusts that specialize in healthcare-related properties, participated in a two-step auction to purchase the assets of a Canadian company. The defendant's efforts derailed. Plaintiff entered into an agreement to purchase the assets, but before the agreement was approved by shareholders, the defendant made a higher bid and made a public announcement. After a flurry of press releases and a ruling by a Canadian court concerning a confidentiality clause that was part of the bidding process, the defendant revoked its bid. The stockholders rejected the agreement with the plaintiff; the deal closed after plaintiff increased its bid. The district court awarded the plaintiff $101,672,807 for tortious interference with contract and with prospective advantage. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, but remanded for consideration of punitive damages. The declaratory proceedings in Canada did not preclude the claims at issue. Jury instructions concerning tortious interference involving competitors, motive, causation, and breach of the confidentiality agreement as wrongful conduct were appropriate.

Petitioner The Galloway Group (Galloway) is a partnership of lawyers with an office in West Virginia. Galloway entered into an agreement with Respondents Fredeking & Fredeking Law Offices, LC (Fredeking) wherein the parties agreed to share attorney fees generated in litigation. Fredeking filed a complaint against Galloway in Wyoming circuit court, alleging that Galloway failed to pay under the agreement. Galloway responded in the Wyoming courts, arguing that Wyoming was not the proper venue for the dispute. After a hearing, the Wyoming court denied Gallowayâs motions, and concluded that the dispute could move forward in Wyoming. Galloway sought a writ of prohibition from the West Virginia Supreme Court to prevent the Wyoming court from enforcing its order. Upon review, the West Virginia Supreme Court found that Wyoming was indeed improper venue, and it granted Galloway and writ for prohibition. Consequently, the Wyoming action was dismissed.

Respondent Lincoln General Insurance Companyâs insured drove a rental car under the influence of methamphetamines, and led police on a high-sped car chase that ended when he struck a vehicle containing Petitioner Julie Bailey and her son. Her son was killed. The insured pled guilty to five felonies, including second-degree murder. The insured assigned his rights to Petitioner to collect on a $1 million excess-insurance policy issued by Lincoln General. Lincoln General denied coverage for damages caused by the insured, relying on an exclusion in the rental agreement that voided coverage if the car was used to commit a crime that could be charged as a felony. The trial court and the court of appeals held that the criminal-acts exclusion of the policy was enforceable. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courtsâ decisions to uphold the criminal-acts exclusion of the insurance policy, finding that Lincoln Generalâs use of the exclusion was a proper exercise of its freedom to contract and provide coverage or damages caused by fortuitous events instead of for damages caused by intentionally criminal acts.

In the first lawsuit, retirees, funded by the union, obtained a preliminary injunction preventing plaintiff from terminating their healthcare benefits. The case is still pending. In the second lawsuit, the plaintiff claims that the union's participation in the first lawsuit violated a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and that the union, during negotiation of the CBA, committed breach of an implied warranty of authority, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional misrepresentation. The district court dismissed the second suit, holding that the union did not breach the CBA and that federal law preempted the state law claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed that the union did not breach the CBA, which did not include a covenant not to sue, as claimed by the plaintiff. The court reversed with respect to preemption of the tort claims, which are "analytically distinct, but of a piece for purposes of" jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. 185(a).

Claimant Cynthia Auck appealed the district courtâs order that found Respondent Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI) acted with substantial justification when it refused to pay her benefits on the death of her husband. By this refusal, Ms. Auck was precluded from seeking attorneyâs fees. The Supreme Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding for Respondent. The Court affirmed the lower courtâs decision, and dismissed Ms. Auckâs claim for attorneyâs fees.