Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals certified a question of Colorado law to the Colorado Supreme Court. An insurer issued a policy that provided directors and officers of a company liability coverage. The policy required the insured to give prompt notice of a claim, specifically, notice "as soon as practicable" after learning of the claim. The policy also required the insured to give notice of the claim by a date certain (not later than 60 days after the expiration of the policy). Near the end of the one-year policy, a company officer was sued for alleged misrepresentations he made during a merger. Unaware of the insurance policy, the officer defended himself against the suit. When he learned of the policy, approximately sixteen months after the policy had expired, he contacted the insurer. The underlying suit was settled. The officer then sued the insurer for denying coverage under the policy. The insurer removed the case to the federal district court, and then moved to dismiss on grounds that the officer's claim was untimely. The issue of Colorado law before the Tenth Circuit centered on the "notice-prejudice" rule to claims-made insurance policies: (1) whether the notice-prejudice rule applied to claims-made liability policies in general; and (2) if so, whether the rule applied to both types of notice requirements in those policies. The Colorado Court answered the certified questions more narrowly than originally presented because the parties agreed that the prompt notice requirement of the claims-made policy in this case was not at issue. The Colorado Court's analysis was restricted to the date-certain notice requirement. The Court held that the notice-prejudice rule did not apply to date-certain notice requirement in a claims-made insurance policy. In a claims-made policy, the date-certain notice defines the scope of coverage ("to excuse late notice in violation of such a requirement would rewrite a fundamental term of the insurance contract.") The Court reframed the certified questions as a single question: whether the notice-prejudice rule applies to the date-certain notice requirement of claims-made policies, to which the Colorado Court answered in the negative. View "Craft v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Sterling Development Group Three, LLC, and Sterling Development Group Eight, LLC, appealed a judgment dismissing their action against James Carlson to collect on two personal guarantees, and an order awarding Carlson costs and disbursements. In 1983, Carlson founded PRACS Institute, Ltd., a medical research facility which began operating in East Grand Forks, Minnesota. In 1999, Sterling Development Group Three entered into a 15-year lease agreement with PRACS for a building located in East Grand Forks. Carlson signed the lease agreement as the president of PRACS. Carlson also signed a personal guaranty. When PRACS expanded in 2004, Sterling Development Group Eight built an expansion to the Sterling Three building, and PRACS entered into a lease agreement with Sterling Eight for a term running simultaneously with the Sterling Three lease. Carlson signed a similar personal guaranty for the Sterling Eight lease. In January 2006, Carlson sold PRACS to Contract Research Solutions, Inc., which the parties refer to as Cetero. The Sterling companies consented to this "change of control." Carlson's daily involvement in PRACS ceased at that point. Carlson received Cetero stock in the sale and became a member of Cetero's seven-member board of directors. In 2010, Cetero suspended its East Grand Forks operations, but continued to pay rent to the Sterling companies. In the spring of 2012, Cetero filed for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy trustee eventually rejected the East Grand Forks Cetero leases with the Sterling companies and stopped paying rent. The Sterling companies then brought this action against Carlson to collect more than $600,000 for unpaid rent under his personal guarantees. Following a bench trial, the district court dismissed the action. The court found Carlson was exonerated from liability under the personal guarantees because the original lease agreements had been altered in three respects by the Sterling companies and Cetero or PRACS without Carlson's knowledge or consent. The Sterling companies argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the district court erred in finding the original lease agreements were contractually altered without Carlson's knowledge or consent, resulting in exoneration of his personal guaranty obligations. Because the district court's finding that the principal's contractual obligations were altered without Carlson's knowledge or consent was not clearly erroneous, and the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding costs and disbursements, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and order. View "Sterling Development Group Three, LLC v. Carlson" on Justia Law

Footstar operated the footwear departments in various Kmart stores as though they were islands. Footstar employees could only work in those departments unless they had written permission from Kmart. In 2005, a Footstar employee tried to help a customer get an infant carrier off a shelf outside the footwear department and the customer was injured. She sued. Kmart sought indemnification from Footstar and its insurer, Liberty Mutual. A magistrate judge found that Footstar and Liberty Mutual both had a duty to defend beginning the day Kmart formally requested coverage since the injury was potentially coverable under the agreement between Kmart and Footstar and the insurance policy. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that neither Liberty Mutual nor Footstar had a duty to indemnify Kmart because the injury did not occur “pursuant to” or “under” the agreement between Kmart and Footstar. That agreement specifically precluded Footstar employees from working outside of the footwear department, where the injury occurred, and actions taken in contravention of the agreement were not “pursuant to” or “under” it. Liberty Mutual did not deny coverage in bad faith and that Kmart did not breach the relevant notice provisions such that Liberty Mutual and Footstar could withhold defense costs. View "Kmart Corp. v. Footstar, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2009, Mosell Equities filed this action against Berryhill & Company and Mr. and Mrs. Berryhill (collectively "Berryhill"). The complaint alleged that Mosell Equities had loaned money to Berryhill and that it had failed to repay the loans. The case was tried to a jury in September 2009. During the trial, Messrs. Mosell and Berryhill provided widely divergent testimony regarding their relationship, whether the checks were actually loans, and what had transpired. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Berryhill on the claims regarding the alleged loans. Mosell Equities filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial. The district court granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to part of a claim for relief, and the Supreme Court reversed that order on appeal. On remand, the district court granted Mosell Equities a new trial, and Berryhill appealed. After review, the Supreme Court reversed: by granting the motion for a new trial in order to enable Mosell Equities to try the case on a theory it did not raise in the first trial, the district court abused its discretion by failing to act consistently with the applicable legal standards. The district court was directed to enter judgment consistent with the original jury verdict. View "Mosell Equities, LLC v. Berryhill & Co., Inc" on Justia Law

Textron, Inc. appealed a Superior Court judgment which held that the company was not entitled to reimbursement from its former fastening manufacturing business, now known as Acument Global Technologies, Inc. for paying certain pre-closing contingent liabilities in the United States. The Superior Court's opinion centered on the meaning of a "tax benefit offset" provision in the parties' Purchase Agreement under which Acument was required to reimburse Textron if Acument received a "tax benefit" related to the contingent liabilities. Textron argued that even if the tax benefit had to be actual rather than merely hypothetical, the Superior Court erred by not finding that Acument actually enjoyed the right to tax benefits. Textron contended that its payment of the pre-closing liabilities constituted a tax benefit because the payments automatically increase Acument's tax basis under U.S. tax law. The Supreme Court disagreed after its review of the appeal: the Agreement, taken as a whole, guaranteed that Acument would not receive a net tax benefit simply because Textron made a required indemnification payment. Accordingly, Textron's argument that Acument has received a tax benefit triggering Textron's right to reimbursement was without merit, as the total effect of Textron's payments is tax-neutral. Similarly, Textron's second and related claim that the Superior Court erred in "redefining" the required tax benefit to mean only a "deduction" rather than any "reduction" was meritless. The therefore affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. View "Textron v. Acument Global Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law

Cross-defendant Michael Tope appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of First American Title Insurance Company in a cross-action to recover money under a title insurance policy after default on a real estate loan to purchase and rehabilitate a home. The property was subject to a notice of abatement action issued by San Joaquin County requiring repair of defects in the rehabilitation of the residence. The subject of the suit was that First American allegedly breached the title insurance policy by failing to provide coverage for the notice of abatement action. Plaintiffs, investors in a real estate loan, sued defendants and cross-complainants Stockton Mortgage Real Estate Loan Servicing Corporation (SMRELS), Stockton Mortgage, Inc., Stockton Management & Development, Inc., and Ross Cardinalli Jr. (collectively cross-complainants) for damages arising from cross-complainants' alleged failure to follow up on the status of the release of a notice of abatement action. Cross-complainants, in turn, initiated this suit against First American, Alliance Title Company, and two of Alliance's employees for damages, indemnity, and declaratory relief arising out of First American's refusal to provide coverage under the title insurance policy, and Alliance's alleged representation, on behalf of First American, that it would obtain a release of the notice of abatement action prior to the close of escrow. First American moved for summary judgment mainly on grounds that the notice of abatement action was not covered under the title insurance policy, cross-complainants were not insured under the title insurance policy, and the preliminary title report relied on by cross-complainants was not a contract. The trial court granted First American's motion and entered summary judgment in its favor. Cross-complainants appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. View "Stockton Mortgage, Inc. v. Tope" on Justia Law

Lincoln, a meat-packing company, and Puretz, an investor, formed Hastings, an Illinois LLC, to bid on cattle-processing plants being sold at a bankruptcy auction. Puretz was to contribute 70% of acquisition and start-up capital; Lincoln 30%, plus management and 40,000 head of cattle per year. Additional details about financing and operations were to be negotiated. To bid, Hastings had to deposit $250,000. Puretz contributed $150,000; Lincoln contributed $100,000. Hastings successfully bid at $3,900,000. Negotiations regarding operations and financing deteriorated. Hastings closed the purchase. Lincoln refused to contribute additional funds and dissociated from Hastings. Under Illinois law, if a member dissociates and the LLC does not dissolve, the LLC must purchase the dissociating member’s distributional interest. Lincoln sought a determination of fair value. The district court held that Lincoln and Puretz each held a 50% interest in Hastings, that the value of Hastings on the dissociation date was $3,900,000, and that Lincoln’s only contribution was $100,000, rejecting Lincoln’s assertions that its identification of the opportunity, business plan, and “sweat equity” had “substantial value.” The court concluded that the value of Lincoln’s interest was $1,950,000, less 30% that Lincoln failed to contribute ($1,170,000), plus return of $100,000, and awarded Lincoln $880,000. The Eighth Circuit reversed. Lincoln and Puretz contemplated that any capital contributed to Hastings would be returned in proportion to their contributions before profits or losses generated by operations were divided equally. Because Lincoln did not make its 30% contribution to capital, it was not entitled to a 30% distribution. View "Lincoln Provision, Inc. v. Aron Puretz" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief against defendants in this action. But the complaint explicitly acknowledged it was “ancillary to” contemplated private arbitration of disputes arising out of the parties’ contractual relationship. The trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and the parties stipulated to stay the action “pending arbitration.” Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this action (purportedly without prejudice) after the claims were submitted to an arbitrator for final resolution and the arbitrator had issued an interim award in favor of defendants. The interim arbitral award was made final without substantive revision, except for adding plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs incurred in the arbitration. The trial court denied defendants’ motion to vacate the dismissal, reasoning that the arbitration and this case were separate proceedings and that plaintiffs had dismissed this action before trial commenced. After its review, the Court of Appeal disagreed with this reasoning and reversed: this lawsuit was based on the same causes of action submitted to the arbitrator; it differed only in the remedies sought. Once the hearing on the merits of the parties’ dispute commenced at the arbitration, it was too late for plaintiffs to dismiss this action without prejudice and thereby avoid an attempt by defendants to recover attorney fees as the prevailing party in this action. View "Mesa Shopping Center-East v. O Hill" on Justia Law

After T G Plastics Trading Co., Inc. (“National Plastics”) allegedly fell behind on payments owed to Toray Plastics (America), Inc., Toray filed suit. The parties settled the lawsuit, and the terms of the settlement were memorialized in a Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement provided that Toray would sell certain materials exclusively through National Plastics and pay National Plastics a twelve percent commission on all sales generated by National Plastics. When the parties began to dispute several aspects of the application of the Settlement Agreement, National Plastics sued Toray. The original complaint did not contain a jury demand. After two years of settlement negotiations, National Plastics amended its complaint to request a jury trial. A jury found Toray liable for breach of the Settlement Agreement and awarded National Plastics more than $2 million in damages. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in allowing National Plastics to amend its complaint to add a jury demand, as National Plastics did not waive its right to a jury trial by a belated demand; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of liability and its calculation of damages. View "T G Plastics Trading Co., Inc. v. Toray Plastics (America), Inc." on Justia Law

The respondents, Shared Towers VA, LLC and NH Note Investment, LLC, appealed, and petitioner Joseph Turner, individually and as trustee of the Routes 3 and 25 Nominee Trust, cross-appealed, Superior Court orders after a bench trial on petitioner’s petition for a preliminary injunction enjoining a foreclosure sale and for damages and reasonable attorney’s fees. The parties’ dispute stemmed from a commercial construction loan agreement and promissory note secured by a mortgage, pursuant to which petitioner was loaned $450,000 at 13% interest per annum to build a home. Respondents argued the trial court erred when it: (1) determined that they would be unjustly enriched if the court required the petitioner to pay the amounts he owed under the note from November 2009 until April 2011; (2) applied the petitioner’s $450,000 lump sum payment to principal; (3) excluded evidence of the petitioner’s experience with similar loans; (4) ruled that, because the promissory note failed to contain a "clear statement in writing" of the charges owed, as required by RSA 399-B:2 (2006), respondents could not collect a $22,500 delinquency charge on the petitioner’s lump sum payment of principal; and (5) denied the respondents’ request for attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner argued that the trial court erroneously concluded that respondents’ actions did not violate the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). After review, the Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded: contrary to the trial court’s decision, petitioner’s obligation to make the payments was not tolled. Because the loan agreement and note remained viable, it was error for the trial court to have afforded the petitioner a remedy under an unjust enrichment theory. The trial court made its decision with regard to the payment of $450,000 in connection with its conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to a remedy under an unjust enrichment theory. Because the Supreme Court could not determine how the trial court would have ruled upon this issue had it not considered relief under that equitable theory, and because, given the nature of the parties’ arguments, resolving this issue requires fact finding that must be done by the trial court in the first instance, it vacated that part of its order and remanded for further proceedings. In light of the trial court’s errors with regard to the attorney’s fees and costs claimed by respondents, the Supreme Court vacated the order denying them, and remanded for consideration of respondents’ request for fees and costs. The Supreme Court found no error in the trial court’s rejection of petitioner’s CPA claim. View "Turner v. Shared Towers VA, LLC" on Justia Law