JRK Property Holdings, Inc. appealed from the order of dismissal entered after the trial court granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by primary insurer Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company (Ironshore) and excess insurers RSUI Indemnity Company (RSUI), Evanston Insurance Company (Evanston), and others (collectively, Insurers). JRK sued Insurers for breach of contract and declaratory judgment after Insurers denied coverage for JRK’s lost business income that resulted from the  COVID-19 pandemic and associated government orders. The trial court entered an order of dismissal in favor of Insurers. JRK appealed.   The Second Appellate District reversed the trial court’s order of dismissal except as to RSUI and Evanston. The court remanded for the trial court to vacate its order granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings and to enter a new order granting the motion without leave to amend as to RSUI and Evanston and denying the motion as to all other defendants. The court explained that under MacKinnon v. Truck Ins. Exchange (2003), the historical background of the pollution exclusion shows its inclusion in insurance policies was intended to address only traditional sources of environmental pollution. The court rejected Insurers’ argument that inclusion of the term “virus” in the definition of a contaminant transforms an exclusion that applies to “pollution” into one that encompasses the spread of a virus due to the normal human activities of breathing and touching surfaces. The court further concluded that the RSUI pathogen exclusion applies because it bars coverage for “losses or damage” caused by the discharge or dispersal of “pathogenic” material. The Evanston pathogen exclusion specifically bars loss or damage caused by the spread of an organic pathogen, defined to include a virus. View "JRK Property Holdings, Inc. v. Colony Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The facts of this case involved the formation of a promissory note between James Rhea and Career General Agency, Inc, GuideOne America Insurance Co. and Dennis Basden. The promissory note was allegedly signed in 2007 and paid off by 2017. Rhea filed this suit in 2018 claiming unconscionability, unjust enrichment, conversion and negligent infliction of emotional distress against Career General. Career General filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the general three year statute of limitations expired in 2010. Rhea argued that under the doctrine of equitable estoppel and the continuing tort doctrine, the statute of limitations did not begin to run until he finished paying the note in 2017. In February 2020, the trial court granted Career General’s motion to dismiss finding that equitable estoppel and the continuing tort doctrine did not apply and that the statute of limitations barred Rhea’s claim. Ninety-nine days later, Rhea filed a “Motion for New Trial, Amended Judgment or Reconsideration under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 59” stating that he had not received notice of the court’s order and asking the court to reconsider whether equitable estoppel and the continuing tort doctrine should apply. In June 2020, Career General responded to the Rule 59 motion and argued that Rhea had failed to present: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) new evidence not previously available; or (3) a need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. But Career General did not raise the issue of timeliness in their response. After a hearing in April 2021, the trial court denied Rhea's motion. The Mississippi Supreme Court found after review that the Court of Appeals in this case reached the correct decision but for the wrong reason. Regardless of whether the parties or the court raised the issue of timeliness, the Supreme Court held the Court of Appeals correctly found that it did not have appellate jurisdiction to review the February 2020 order. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was thus affirmed. View "Rhea v. Career General Agency, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

A Mississippi circuit court granted law firm Campbell DeLong, LLP, a declaratory judgment against a former partner of the firm, Britt Virden, who had alleged breach of contract, among other claims. Virden appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. On certiorari review, the Supreme Court found that Virden’s prewithdrawal claims were not precluded by a signed agreement, which only came into operation in the event of death, termination, withdrawal, or retirement of a partner. The Supreme Court therefore reversed the appellate and circuit court judgments and remanded the case for the circuit court to allow Virden an opportunity to maintain an action against his former firm for breach of an implied contract regarding partner compensation. View "Virden v. Campbell Delong, LLP, et al." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the conclusion of the trial court that Plaintiff failed to establish Defendant's requisite minimum contacts with Tennessee, and thus the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Defendant with respect to Plaintiff's suit, holding that the trial court correctly dismissed Plaintiff's complaint.Plaintiff, a Tennessee resident, hired Defendant, an Alabama corporation with its principal place of business in Alabama, to build a house on a parcel of land in Alabama. Upon becoming dissatisfied with the quality and expense of the construction work Plaintiff filed suit in the Davidson County Chancery Court. The trial court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that Defendant's contacts with Tennessee were minor and attenuated. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of the minimum contacts necessary for a Tennessee court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant. View "Baskin v. Pierce & Allred Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals as to the applicability of the economic loss doctrine in this case, holding that the economic loss doctrine applies only in products liability cases and should not be expanded to apply outside the products liability context.In the underlying suit brought by a drywall subcontractor against a general contractor under theories of breach of contract and tort a jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages to the subcontractor. The court of appeals affirmed in part the award of compensatory damages for breach of contract, dismissed the tort claim, and reversed the award for punitive damages, holding that the economic loss doctrine applied outside the products liability context when the contract was negotiated between sophisticated commercial entities. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the economic loss doctrine only applies in products liability cases and should not be extended to other claims; and (2) the economic loss doctrine did not bar the subcontractor's recovery of compensatory and punitive damages based on its tort claim. View "Commercial Painting Co. v. Weitz Co., LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the circuit court concluding that the notice-prejudice rule adopted in Jones v. Bituminous Casualty Corp., 821 S.W.2d 798 (Ky. 1991), applied in the underlying case, holding that there was no error.At issue was whether the claims-made-and-reported management liability policy issued by Allied World Specialty Insurance Company to Kentucky State University (KSU) provided coverage when KSU did not comply with the policy's notice provisions. The circuit court granted summary judgment for KSU after applying the notice-prejudice rule. The court of appeals reversed, determining that the notice-prejudice rule did not apply. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the policy's notice provisions were clear and unambiguous and that Allied World was entitled to deny coverage to KSU because KSU did not comply with the notice requirements; and (2) generally, the notice-prejudice rule shall not apply to a claims-made-and-reported policy that contains unambiguous notice requirements as condition precedent to coverage. View "Ky. State University v. Darwin Nat'l Assurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal two orders of the circuit court in which the court denied the requests brought by Mark and Annessee Brockley to hold Michael Trucano, the Michael J. Truman Living Trust, and Hickoks Hotel & Suites, LLC in contempt, holding that there was no error.The Brockleys sued several entities seeking the amount remaining due on a contract. The circuit court granted partially summary judgment in favor of the Brockleys. At issue was the circuit court's charging order directing an entity that later changed its name to Hickoks to pay certain distributions owed to the Brockleys. The Brockleys filed motions for an order to show cause claiming that several defendants should be held in contempt for violating the charging order. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court was not clearly erroneous when it found that neither Trucano, the Trucano Trust, nor Hickoks willfully or contumaciously violated the charging order. View "Brockley v. Ellis" on Justia Law

Darren and Tamara Berger (“Bergers”) appealed a judgment dismissing their claims of violation of a planned unit development (PUD), breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, private nuisance, and negligence against their neighbors Jason and Krysta Sellers (“Sellers”), Sellers’ homebuilder Jordan Anderson and Big River Builders, Inc. (together, “Builder”), and the Misty Waters Owners’ Association (“Association”). Sellers and Builder cross-appealed the judgment dismissing their claims of defamation, interference with contract and business, and negligence against Bergers and neighbor Jeff Carlson. The central issue in this case was whether the PUD minimum setback from the bay could be changed by obtaining a new Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) without an amendment to the PUD. To this, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the PUD unambiguously set the minimum setback from the bay as the contour line in the 2005 LOMR-F and therefore Sellers’ home violated the PUD. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Bergers’ claims against Sellers for violation of the PUD, breach of restrictive covenants, negligence (drainage), and private nuisance (setbacks). The Court remanded with instructions to grant Bergers partial summary judgment on their claims against Sellers for violation of the PUD and breach of restrictive covenants and for declaratory relief (against Sellers) as requested in their motion for partial summary judgment. The Court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on Bergers’ claims against the Association for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence. The Court affirmed the court’s grant of summary judgment on all of Bergers’ claims against Builder, namely the PUD violation, breach of restrictive covenants, and negligence. The Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment on Bergers’ claims against the Association for breach of restrictive covenants and private nuisance. The Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment on all of Sellers’ and Builder’s claims. View "Berger, et al. v. Sellers, et al." on Justia Law

In this review of a decision of the Public Service Commission relating to rates charged by Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) for the provision of electric service, the Supreme Court held that the Commission had not supplied a basis for meaningful judicial review of its conclusion that the settlement agreement provided a reasonable resolution of the issues, established reasonable rates, and was in the public interest.The settlement agreement at issue was between FPL and seven parties that intervened in the matter and permitted FPL to increase its base rates and service charges. After hearing arguments in favor of and against the settlement agreement the Commission concluded that the agreement "provides a reasonable resolution of all issues raised, establishes rates that are fair, just, and reasonable, and is in the public interest." The Supreme Court reversed, holding that remand was required because the Commission failed to perform its duty to explain its reasoning. View "Floridians Against Increased Rates, Inc. v. Clark" on Justia Law

In this discretionary appeal brought by Discovery Oil and Gas, LLC to determine whether an express indemnification provision in its contract with Wildcat Drilling, LLC evinced a clear intent by the parties to abrogate the common-law notice requirements for indemnification set forth in Globe Indemnity Co. v. Schmitt, 53 N.E.2d 790 (Ohio 1944), the Supreme Court held that the requirements announced in Globe Indemnity did not apply.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) when the parties have entered into a contract containing an express indemnification provision, the common-law notice requirements set forth in Globe Indemnity do not apply, and the parties are bound by the terms of their contract because the provision evinces a clear intent by the parties to abrogate the common law; and (2) the language of the contract in this case evicted the parties' clear intent to abrogate the common-law notice requirements for indemnification. View "Wildcat Drilling, LLC v. Discovery Oil & Gas, LLC" on Justia Law