Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

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

When she was hired by Kindercare, Westmoreland signed a “Mutual Arbitration Agreement Regarding Wages and Hours,” including a “Waiver of Class and Collective Claims” and a “Savings Clause & Conformity Clause,” stating that if the Waiver of Class and Collective Claims is found to be unenforceable, the agreement is invalid and any claim brought on a class, collective, or representative action basis must be filed in court. Kindercare terminated Westmoreland. She filed suit asserting violations of the Labor Code, on an individual and class action basis. Kindercare successfully moved to compel arbitration of Westmoreland’s individual non-PAGA (Private Attorneys General Act) claims, and to stay her PAGA claim. The court of appeal concluded that the unenforceable PAGA waiver was not severable and rendered the entire agreement unenforceable. The California Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Kindercare’s petitions for review. Kindercare filed a “Renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration of Non-PAGA Claims and Stay PAGA Claims Based on New Law” citing a July 2021 California decision, “Western Bagel.”The court of appeal affirmed, noting that an order denying a renewed motion is not appealable but exercising its discretion to hear the matter as a petition for writ of mandate. Western Bagel is not “new law” that justifies a different decision. As a consequence of Kindercare’s drafting decisions, the agreement is invalid by operation of the unambiguous “Savings Clause and Conformity Clause.” Kindercare must litigate all of Westmoreland’s claims in court. View "Westmoreland v. Kindercare Education LLC" on Justia Law

This appeal arises from litigation involving a public construction project to build the Central Region 9th Street Span K-8 school in downtown Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD or District) and Suffolk Construction Company, Inc. (Suffolk), entered into a development and construction agreement (contract), for the development and building of the school. Suffolk later entered into subcontracts with various subcontractors, including R.J. Daum Construction Company (Daum) and Fisk Electric Company (Fisk). Throughout the project, various problems arose, which caused delay and disruption and resulted in increased costs to Suffolk, Daum and Fisk. Suffolk sued LAUSD, alleging breach of the contract, implied contractual indemnity, and seeking declaratory relief. The jury found that Suffolk substantially performed its contract and that LAUSD breached the implied warranty of correctness by providing plans and/or specifications for the concrete footing design that was not correct. Further, the jury determined Suffolk’s damages for the concrete issue decided in phase 1 (TIA 5).   The Second Appellate District found that the phase 1 verdict must be reversed and remanded for retrial on the ground that the special jury instruction based on Public Contract Code section 1104 was improper. The reversal of the phase 1 liability verdict requires that the phase 2 trial of damages for TIA 5 (related to the concrete cracking issue) must also be reversed and remanded for retrial. Finally, the court held that the trial court erred in granting JNOV on the phase 2 jury verdict. Thus, the decision granting the JNOV is reversed with direction to reinstate the jury verdict on that issue. View "Suffolk Construction Co. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiff signed an online arbitration agreement before starting work at a car dealership. He had to sign if he wanted a job: the car dealership presented it as a take-it-or-leave-it mandatory condition. Plaintiff signed the arbitration contract, and the dealership hired him. The employment relationship turned out to be unsuccessful: Plaintiff sued the dealership for firing him. The dealership moved to compel arbitration. The trial court ruled the arbitration contract was unconscionable.   The Second Appellate District reversed. The court held that Plaintiff suffered no substantive unconscionability, which is indispensable to the unconscionability defense. The court held that, to some extent, the contract-at-issue seems to be a common form, at least for some car dealerships. Second, all four agreements containing the arbitration clauses extended for more than a page of print. Third, the font size and functional readability of the contracts here did not seem to trouble Plaintiff.   Further, the court explained that Plaintiff argues this language implies to laypeople that it bars filing a charge with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The court found that Plaintiff’s argument fails on two counts. As Plaintiff himself notes, there is clear language to the contrary: “I understand and agree that nothing in this agreement shall be construed so as to preclude me from filing any administrative charge with, or from participating in any investigation of a charge conducted by, any government agency such as the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and/or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.” More fundamentally, arguments about prolix legalese go to procedural and not substantive unconscionability. View "Basith v. Lithia Motors, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement with Empire Nissan, Inc. Nissan fired Fuentes, she sued, and Nissan moved to compel arbitration. The trial court found the arbitration agreement unconscionable and denied the motion.   The Second Appellate District reversed and directed the trial court to compel arbitration, holding that this contract lacks substantive unconscionability. The court explained that Plaintiff must show both procedural and substantive unconscionability to establish the defense. These two elements need not be present to the same degree. Rather we evaluate them on a sliding scale. The more substantively oppressive the contract terms, the less evidence of procedural unconscionability is required to conclude that the contract is unenforceable. Conversely, the more deceptive or coercive the bargaining tactics employed, the less substantive unfairness is required. The court explained that tiny and unreadable print indeed is a problem, but is a problem of procedural unconscionability. Accordingly, the court explained that it cannot double count it as a problem of substantive unconscionability. View "Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc." on Justia Law

Reliant Life Shares, LLC (Reliant or LLC) was a profitable limited liability company owned in equal parts by three members. Two of them, SM and DC, were longtime friends and business partners. After DC stopped working out of the offices of Reliant because of a medical condition, no one at Reliant expected him to return to work, but SM assured CDC he remained a loyal business partner. Before long, however, SM and the third member of Reliant, SG, tried to force out DC, splitting the company’s profits and other revenues 50/50 and paying DC nothing. The LLC sued DC, seeking a declaratory judgment that he was properly removed as a member of the LLC. DC cross-complained against the parties and the LLC, alleging breach of contract, fraud, breach of the duty of loyalty and several other causes of action, seeking damages, an accounting and imposition of a constructive trust over funds obtained through violation of fiduciary duties. The jury awarded DC damages and valued his equity interest. The LLC, SM, SG, and several of their entities appealed. They assert a multitude of arguments for reversal of the judgment.   The Second Appellate District found no merit in any of the claims and affirmed the judgment in full. The court found that the trial court acted well within its discretion when it decided alter ego claims in phase one. Further, the court found no merit in the election of remedies argument, either as it relates to prejudgment interest or anything else. View "Reliant Life Shares, LLC v. Cooper" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed claims against the Ford Motor Company (FMC) for alleged defects in vehicles the company manufactured. FMC filed a motion to compel arbitration of plaintiffs’ claims based on the arbitration provision in the sale contracts. Plaintiffs opposed FMC’s motion, including on the grounds that FMC had waived its right to compel arbitration through its litigation conduct. The trial court denied FMC’s motion on its merits.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court explained that it agreed with the trial court that FMC could not compel arbitration based on Plaintiffs’ agreements with the dealers that sold them the vehicles. Equitable estoppel does not apply because, contrary to FMC’s arguments, Plaintiffs’ claims against it in no way rely on the agreements. FMC was not a third-party beneficiary of those agreements, as there is no basis to conclude Plaintiffs and their dealers entered into them with the intention of benefitting FMC. And FMC is not entitled to enforce the agreements as an undisclosed principal because there is no nexus between Plaintiffs’ claims, any alleged agency between FMC and the dealers, and the agreements. View "Ford Motor Warranty Cases" on Justia Law