Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that, without their knowledge, the City had erected a sewer line across Plaintiffs' property. Plaintiffs contended that in doing so, the City damaged a water pipe owned by Plaintiffs and that the damaged culvert was the proximate cause of three washouts on their property. Plaintiffs alleged causes of action for negligence and inverse condemnation. The City filed a motion for summary judgment, which the circuit court denied. The City appealed, arguing that the circuit court mischaracterized Plaintiffs' claim as based on contract, rather than tort, and in so doing denied the City the immunity to which it was entitled. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court erred in finding Plaintiffs' negligence claim sounded in contract rather than tort; and (2) the City was entitled to statutory immunity as to the tort cause of action. View "City of Malvern v. Jenkins" on Justia Law

Newton Dorsett, Donald Buffington, Richard Williamson, and Diamond Transport & Drilling were owners of an oil-drilling rig. After disputes arose among the owners, the parties entered into a compromise agreement. Buffington filed this action against Diamond Transport and Dorsett, alleging breach of contract, conversion, and fraud in connection with the compromise agreement. Dorsett filed a third-party complaint against Williamson, but the circuit court later granted Dorsett's motion to dismiss his third-party complaint. After the circuit court entered judgment in the case, Dorsett appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without prejudice, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to decide the appeal because, where the circuit court failed to issue an order dismissing Williamson from the case, there was no final judgment as required by Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b). View "Dorsett v. Buffington" on Justia Law

LVNV Funding, LLC filed a complaint against Rae Nardi for an amount due on her credit card account with Citibank. LVNV claimed, as an assignee, it had a contractual relationship between Nardi and Citibank and a cause of action for recovery of the amount due on the account. Nardi filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that the failure to attach to the complaint a copy of the agreement between Nardi and Citibank constituted a violation of Ark. R. Civ. P. 10(d). The circuit court granted summary judgment for Nardi, finding that LVNV violated Rule 10(d), which requires that a copy of the "instrument or document" upon which the claim is based be attached to the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that compliance with Rule 10(d) is mandatory, and therefore, entry of summary judgment was proper. View "LVNV Funding, LLC v. Nardi" on Justia Law

HPD, LLC and TETRA Technologies Inc. entered into an agreement for HPD to supply equipment to be used in TETRA's future facility. The contract contained a provision for binding arbitration. After the construction of the plant was completed, TETRA filed a complaint against HPD, alleging that the equipment designed by HPD did not perform to expectations. TETRA also sought a declaratory judgment that the contract and the embedded arbitration clause were illegal and thus void because HPD performed engineering services without obtaining a certificate of authorization as allegedly required by Ark. Code Ann. 17-30-303. HPD moved to compel arbitration. After a hearing, the circuit court rule in TETRA's favor that it would determine the threshold issues of arbitrability before deciding whether the case must proceed to arbitration. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for the entry of an order compelling arbitration, holding that the circuit court erred by not honoring the parties' clear expression of intent to arbitrate the existing disputes. View "HPD LLC v. TETRA Techs., Inc." on Justia Law

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

Appellant Voltage Vehicles appealed an order of the Arkansas Motor Vehicle Commission directing Voltage to repurchase six 2008 electric vehicles from two Arkansas dealers (collectively referred to as "Rainbow"). The order stemmed from a safety recall issued by Voltage regarding its vehicles, Rainbow's subsequent letter to Voltage and to the Commission notifying them of its desire to terminate the licensing agreement, and Voltage's refusal to repurchase the six vehicles Rainbow purchased from Voltage. The circuit court affirmed the Commission's order. Voltage appealed, arguing that the buy-back provisions of the Arkansas Motor Vehicle Commission Act did not require it to repurchase the vehicles in Rainbow's inventory because they were not for the "current model year and one year prior model year." The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the Commission failed in its obligation to make sufficient findings of fact relevant to the contested issued of what constituted the current model year, the Court could not determine whether the Commission resolved that issue in conformity with the law. Remanded to make findings based on the correct termination date. View "Voltage Vehicles v. Ark. Motor Vehicle Comm'n" on Justia Law

At issue in the underlying case was the discharge of by Defendant of the law firm Harrill & Sutter and what attorneys' fees were owed following that discharge. The circuit court ruled that Defendant discharged Harrill for cause and that, as a result, Harrill was entitled to a fee based only on quantum-meruit recovery and not the parties' fee agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's award in quantum-meruit recovery but reversed the circuit court's ruling denying Defendant's request for attorneys' fees on the basis that the circuit court had provided no findings in support of its denial of such fees. On remand, the circuit court found that Defendant was the prevailing party under Arkansas law and granted her attorneys' fees. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded on the issue of attorneys' fees, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Defendant was the prevailing party; but (2) the fee award was not reasonable. View "Harrill & Sutter P.L.L.C. v. Kosin" on Justia Law

Appellee initiated this putative class-action lawsuit against DIRECTV, seeking damages for herself individually and on behalf of other former DIRECTV subscribers who paid an early cancellation fee to DIRECTV after they terminated DIRECTV's service. Appellee alleged that DIRECTV's enforcement and collection of its early cancellation fee was deceptive and unconscionable in violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Appellee moved to certify the litigation as a class action. DIRECTV moved to compel Appellee to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration provision in the customer agreement that DIRECTV alleged had been mailed with Appellee's first billing statement. The circuit court denied the motion to compel arbitration and granted Appellee's motion for class certification. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court correctly denied DIRECTV's motion to compel Appellee to arbitration on the basis that Appellee cancelled her service so quickly she did not assent to the arbitration agreement by her continued use of service; and (2) there was no merit to DIRECTV's arguments for reversal of the class-certification order. View "DIRECTV, Inc. v. Murray" on Justia Law

Appellants, a clinic study center and three medical doctors, filed an action against Appellees, Dr. Samuel and Marilyn Boellner, alleging breaches of contract for a covenant not to compete, tortious inteference with a business expectancy, defamation, and injunctive relief. Appellees counterclaimed for breach of contract, wrongful termination, and declaratory judgment on the noncompete agreement. The trial court returned verdicts in favor of both Appellants and Appellees. Appellants later caused a writ of garnishment to be issued to reach assets of Marilyn Boellner held in an Individual Retirement Account (IRA). Appellants moved to declare the IRA statute unconstitutional. The circuit court denied Appellants' motion and quashed the writ of garnishment. Appellants appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute was constitutional, as the IRA exemption provided in Ark. Code Ann. 16-66-220(a)(1) is not an absolute exemption of all personal property, and, as such, does not offend Ark. Const. art. IV, section 2.

Sixty-six plaintiffs filed the underlying lawsuit in Tennessee against Morrow Valley Land Company and Ben Cain (Appellees) and others, alleging that Defendants owned and operated a concentrated animal-feeding operation that constituted a nuisance and a continuing trespass. After Appellees' insurer, Scottsdale Insurance Company, refused to provide defense or indemnification coverage under its insurance policy with Appellees, Appellees filed a petition for declaratory judgment in an Arkansas circuit court against Scottsdale and seeking damages for breach-of-contract claims. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Appellees, concluding that Scottsdale had a duty to defend Appellees as its insured in the action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that the pollution exclusion provision in the insurance policy was ambiguous and that Appellees were entitled to summary judgment on the duty to defend because there was a possibility that the injury or damage may fall within the policy coverage.