Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Bennett, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon, purchased three disability income insurance policies from National in 1984, 1991, and 1995. Under the policies, monthly benefits were payable for life if he was totally disabled due to injury; if due to sickness, benefits would only be paid until the age of 65. National initially approved Bennett’s 2014 claim that he was totally disabled due to an injury sustained when thrown from his horse. In June 2015, National notified him of its determination that his disability was due to sickness, not an injury. National continued to pay disability benefits until September 2018, the policy year Bennett turned 65 years old.Bennett sued. The trial court granted National summary judgment, concluding his claims were barred by the statutes of limitation — four years for breach of contract and two years for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing–both of which accrued when National issued an unconditional denial of liability in June 2015. The court of appeal reversed, agreeing with Bennett that his causes of action did not accrue until all elements — including actual damages — were complete. Bennett suffered no harm as of June 2015, because National continued to pay disability benefits. Only in September 2018 — when National began withholding benefits, and Bennett thereby incurred damages — did his causes of action accrue. View "Bennett v. Ohio National Life Assurance Corp." on Justia Law

The trial court entered judgment for Respondent in this breach of contract claim. The Second Appellate District affirmed and also imposed sanctions against Appellant's counsel for filing a frivolous appeal.The Second Appellate District explained "An appeal is frivolous only when it is prosecuted for an improper motive – to harass the respondent or delay the effect of an adverse judgment – or when it indisputably has no merit – when any reasonable attorney would agree that the appeal is totally and completely without merit." The court held that here, the appeal was frivolous because it "indisputably has no merit." The matter was entirely within the discretion of the trial court, and the fact that Appellant's counsel consulted with two other attorneys who believed the claim had merit did not change the court's opinion. View "Champlin/GEI Wind Holdings, LLC v. Avery" on Justia Law

Ring manufactures and sells home security and smart home devices including video doorbells, security cameras, and alarms. The plaintiffs purchased video doorbell and security camera products from Ring and subsequently filed a class action complaint against Ring asserting claims under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, false advertising law, and Unfair Competition Law. They sought injunctive relief requiring Ring to prominently disclose to consumers certain information about its products and services.Ring moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration provision in its terms of service. The plaintiffs did not dispute that they agreed to Ring’s terms of service but argued the arbitration provision violates the California Supreme Court’s 2017 “McGill” holding that a pre-dispute arbitration agreement is invalid and unenforceable under state law insofar as it purports to waive a party’s statutory right to seek public injunctive relief.The court of appeal affirmed the denial of Ring's motion to compel arbitration. The parties did not “clearly and unmistakably" delegate to the arbitrator exclusive authority to decide whether the arbitration provision is valid under McGill. The contract language at issue is commonly understood to preclude public injunctive relief in arbitration. The Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1, does not preempt McGill’s holding. The contract’s severability clause means the plaintiffs’ claims cannot be arbitrated and may be brought in court. View "Jack v. Ring LLC" on Justia Law

The Plan is a nonprofit health care service plan subject to Health & Safety Code 1340, including the Parity Act, under which: “Every health care service plan contract . . . that provides hospital, medical, or surgical coverage shall provide coverage for the diagnosis and medically necessary treatment of severe mental illness of a person of any age, and of serious emotional disturbances of a child . . . under the same terms and conditions applied to other medical conditions.”Plaintiffs alleged that the Plan violates the Parity Act by “deterring members from obtaining one-on-one mental health therapy without making individualized determinations … encouraging ‘group’ therapy, without making individualized determinations" where similar practices are not followed in the treatment of physical health conditions. An Unruh Civil Rights Act claim alleged that the Plan intentionally discriminated against persons with mental disabilities or conditions. The court granted the Plan summary judgment.The court of appeal affirmed the rejection of one plaintiff’s individual claims; the Plan is not liable for the acts of its subsidiary by whom the plaintiff’s coverage was issued. The court otherwise reversed. On an Unfair Competition Law claim, the court failed to consider how the Plan’s conduct undermines its contractual promises of covered treatment in violation of the Parity Act. On the Unruh claim, triable issues of fact exist as to whether the plaintiffs were denied medically necessary treatment as a result of intentional discrimination. View "Futterman v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2014 the Los Angeles City Council passed a resolution directing various City departments and officials to prepare and execute the necessary approvals and agreements to convey the property to Childhelp in exchange for Childhelp’s agreement to continue using the property to provide services for victims of child abuse. Ultimately, however, the City decided not to transfer the property to Childhelp. Childhelp filed this action against the City for, among other things, declaratory relief, writ of mandate, and promissory estoppel, and the City filed an unlawful detainer action against Childhelp. After the trial court consolidated the two actions, the court granted the City’s motion for summary adjudication on Childhelp’s cause of action for promissory estoppel, sustained without leave to amend the City’s demurrer to Childhelp’s causes of action for declaratory relief and writ of mandate, and granted the City’s motion for summary judgment on its unlawful detainer complaint. Childhelp appealed the ensuing judgment.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court explained that Childhelp had occupied the property for almost 30 years and had an expectation it would eventually own the property. The 2014 resolution certainly suggested the City was seriously considering selling the property to Childhelp. But it was undisputed the parties never completed the transaction in accordance with the City Charter. While Childhelp cites cases reciting general principles of promissory estoppel, it does not cite any cases where the plaintiff successfully invoked promissory estoppel against a municipality in these circumstances. The trial court did not err in granting the City’s motion for summary adjudication on Childhelp’s promissory estoppel cause of action. View "Childhelp, Inc. v. City of L.A." on Justia Law

After years of what the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) viewed as unsatisfactory teaching performance by a certificated teacher, LAUSD served the teacher with a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and a Statement of Charges, which included notice that the employee was suspended without pay. The teacher brought and prevailed on a motion for immediate reversal of suspension (MIRS) and thus received pay during the pendency of the dismissal proceedings. LAUSD ultimately prevailed in those proceedings. LAUSD then sought a writ of administrative mandamus in the superior court seeking to set aside the order granting the MIRS and to recoup the salary payments it had made to the teacher during the pendency of the proceedings. The trial court denied the writ, holding that the MIRS order is not reviewable. The court also ruled (1) LAUSD cannot recover the payments to the teacher under its cause of action for money had and received and (2) LAUSD’s cause of action for declaratory judgment is derivative of its other claims. The trial court entered judgment against LAUSD in favor of the teacher.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court explained that LAUSD has failed to show that in adding the MIRS procedure, the Legislature intended school districts to be able to recover payments to subsequently dismissed employees. The court wrote that if LAUSD believed such recovery should be permitted through judicial review of MIRS orders or otherwise, it should address the Legislature. View "L.A. Unified School Dist. v. Office of Admin. Hearings" on Justia Law

In this insurance coverage action, Defendant Stillwater Insurance Company (Stillwater) contends that an animal liability exclusion in the insured’s homeowner’s insurance policy (the policy) precludes any duty to defend because the third parties sued the insured for injuries they and their dogs sustained when their dogs were bitten by two pit bulls on a public street. The insurer determined that the exclusion applied because the underlying complaint alleged that the pit bulls lived at the insured’s home and, therefore, it had no obligation to indemnify an excluded claim. The insured denied any ownership or control of the pit bulls, which were owned by her boyfriend, who did not live at her home. The insurer did not conduct any further investigation. Plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Stillwater on her claims based on Stillwater’s refusal to defend Plaintiff in the third-party lawsuit.   The Second Circuit reversed. The court concluded that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Stillwater because there is evidence that Stillwater breached its duty to defend. The court also reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Stillwater on Plaintiff’s claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The court explained that even if the insured was correct and the pit bulls were not under her ownership, the third party still might have raised a claim potentially covered by the policy. An insurer can be excused from the duty to defend only if the third-party complaint can by no conceivable theory raise an issue within the policy’s coverage. View "Dua v. Stillwater Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Starlight Cinemas, Inc., Akarakian Theaters, Inc. (collectively, Starlight) appealed from a judgment entered in favor of Defendant Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company (MBIC) after the trial court granted MBIC’s motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend. Starlight, which owns and operates movie theaters in Southern California, sued MBIC for breach of an insurance contract and bad faith denial of coverage after MBIC denied Starlight’s claim for losses sustained when it was compelled by government orders to suspend operations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Starlight contends a policy term providing coverage for lost business income due to a suspension of operations “caused by direct physical loss of or damage to property” can be reasonably construed to include loss of use of its theaters without any physical alteration to the property.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court concluded Starlight has not alleged a covered loss because the policy language requires a physical alteration of the covered property, which was not alleged. The court explained that Starlight did not allege that the COVID-19 virus was present in its theaters or that there was any physical alteration of its property as a result of either the virus or the government orders. As discussed, most California appellate courts have held the allegation of temporary loss of use of property resulting from pandemic-related government closure orders—without any physical loss of the property—is not sufficient to support a claim against an insurer for business income coverage under a policy that requires the suspension be caused by “direct physical loss of or damage to” insured property. View "Starlight Cinemas, Inc. v. Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company" on Justia Law

The landlord is a four-member LLC with a single asset--a building in downtown Napa. The tenant, Stone Brewing, a large beer brewing and retail corporation, operates a brewpub in the building. Stone Brewing did not pay rent for several months during the pandemic. The landlord sued for unlawful detainer. Stone argued it was excused from paying rent because COVID-19 regulations and business interruptions triggered a force majeure provision in its lease.The trial court granted the landlord summary judgment, finding that the force majeure provision only excused performance if the claiming party was unable to meet its obligations due to factors outside its control; the tenant admitted during discovery it had the financial resources to pay rent during the period of the COVID-19 regulations but simply refused to do so. The court of appeal affirmed. The force majeure provision does not apply where the tenant had the ability to meet its contractual obligations but chooses not to perform due to financial constraints. The plain meaning of the force majeure provision does not support an interpretation that ties a party’s obligation to pay rent to its profitability or revenue stream instead of a delay or interruption caused by the force majeure event itself. View "West Pueblo Partners, LLC v. Stone Brewing Co., LLC" on Justia Law

The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation California (Chumash) appealed a judgment following the granting of a motion for summary judgment in favor of Lexington Insurance Company (Lexington) in Chumash’s lawsuit against Lexington for denial of insurance coverage.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court concluded that, among other things, Chumash did not present sufficient evidence to show that the COVID-19 virus caused physical property damage to its casino and resort so as to fall within the property damage coverage provisions of the Lexington insurance policy. The court explained that had the Chumash Casino and Resort sustained property damage, it was required to specify what property was damaged and to submit a claim for the dollar amount of that loss. The absence of such information supports Lexington’s decision to deny coverage. View "Santa Ynez Band of Chumash etc. v. Lexington Ins. Co." on Justia Law