Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

A Texas truck driver was injured while making roadside repairs in Iowa when his parked semi was struck by another vehicle. After the accident, the driver retained a Texas attorney to pursue his personal injury claim. That attorney negotiated with the insurer for the other driver, ultimately agreeing to a settlement of $125,000 and requesting a release. However, the client did not sign the release and later replaced his attorney, claiming he had not authorized the settlement. The client then filed a lawsuit in Iowa, seeking additional compensation and naming the driver, the driver’s employer, and others as defendants.The defendants responded by moving to enforce the settlement agreement in the Iowa District Court for Warren County. The district court, acting as factfinder with no objection from either party, held a hearing, accepted evidence, and considered the client’s affidavit. The court found that the attorney was presumed to have settlement authority and that the client had not rebutted this presumption with clear and convincing evidence. The court enforced the settlement and dismissed the case upon payment of the agreed sum. The client’s motion to reconsider was denied, and he appealed.The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the district court’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence. The Iowa Supreme Court granted further review. The Supreme Court held that, because the client did not object to the district court’s procedure, the court properly acted as factfinder. The Supreme Court further held that the district court’s finding—that the attorney had authority to settle—was supported by substantial evidence, and thus the settlement agreement was enforceable. The court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts. View "Recio v. Fridley" on Justia Law

Two brothers operated a farming and cattle partnership, with one managing the finances and records and the other handling outside operations. The financial brother, assisted by his daughter, maintained control over the partnership’s handwritten ledgers and inventory records, while the other brother relied on the information provided. Over several years, the managing brother made false entries in the ledgers, diverted partnership income into personal accounts, and concealed certain ownership interests in partnership assets from his brother. Suspicious discrepancies surfaced when the outside-operating brother noticed substantial errors affecting his reported net worth, prompting him to seek dissolution of the partnership and to sue for damages.The District Court for Thurston County conducted a bench trial, hearing evidence from the parties and expert witnesses. It found that the managing brother and his daughter had exclusive control over the partnership’s finances and intentionally concealed information. The court concluded that the outside-operating brother could not reasonably have discovered the wrongdoing earlier, given his lack of access to original records and his trust in the managing brother. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff under several theories, including breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract, and imposed joint and several liability on both defendants.Upon appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal questions de novo. It held that the claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment were not barred by the statute of limitations, as discovery of the fraud occurred within the allowed period. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s determinations regarding liability, damages, and the denial of post-trial motions, upholding the judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The court specifically affirmed the joint and several liability for both defendants and the calculation of damages, rejecting the appellants’ arguments regarding settlements, contract defenses, and the statute of limitations. View "Sebade v. Sebade" on Justia Law

A municipal water and gas board entered into four contracts with a contractor to replace and expand gas lines in and around a city. The total project cost exceeded $4 million, and the contractor began work after being the sole bidder for each project phase. After paying the contractor over $2.8 million, the board ceased payments, leaving over $800,000 due for completed work. The board asserted it could not continue payments because the advertisement for sealed bids had not strictly complied with the version of the applicable Alabama statute in effect at the time the bids were solicited. The contractor then sued the board for breach of contract and other claims.The Franklin Circuit Court granted summary judgment for the board, finding, in effect, that strict compliance with the statutory advertising requirements was necessary and that the contracts were void due to noncompliance. The trial court denied the contractor’s postjudgment motion, and the contractor appealed.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case de novo. It held that substantial compliance, rather than strict compliance, with the advertising requirements for public works contracts under the relevant statute can satisfy the law’s objectives. The court distinguished this situation from prior precedent where there was a complete absence of competitive bidding and evidence of favoritism or corruption. Here, there was no such evidence, and the board had taken affirmative steps to advertise, including publication and online postings. The court concluded that the contractor presented substantial evidence of substantial compliance, creating a genuine issue of material fact. The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Pinpoint Locating, Inc. v. The Water Works and Gas Board of the City of Red Bay" on Justia Law

Four property-specific limited liability companies owned real estate in Wisconsin, which was leased to skilled nursing facilities operated by Kevin Breslin through his company, KBWB Operations, LLC. Breslin and his co-guarantors executed personal guaranties ensuring payment and performance under the leases. The nursing facility tenants defaulted on their rent obligations starting in 2018 and subsequently lost their operating licenses after a court-appointed receiver moved residents out. The tenants also failed to complete a purchase option for the properties, triggering a liquidated damages clause. Plaintiffs later sold the properties at a loss.The plaintiffs sued Breslin, his company, and co-guarantors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to enforce the guaranties and recover damages. During the litigation, plaintiffs discovered that one co-guarantor was a California citizen, which destroyed complete diversity and thus federal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs moved to dismiss this non-diverse defendant, arguing he was not indispensable because the guaranties provided for joint and several liability. The district court agreed and dismissed him. Breslin did not oppose the dismissal. Plaintiffs then moved for summary judgment; Breslin, facing criminal charges, invoked the Fifth Amendment and presented no evidence on liability or damages. The district court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs and awarded nearly $22 million in damages across several categories.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that jurisdiction was proper because the dismissed co-guarantor was not an indispensable party under Rule 19, given joint and several liability. The court affirmed the district court’s findings on most damages but vacated the awards for accelerated rent under one lease (pending further consideration of its enforceability as a liquidated damages clause) and for liquidated damages related to the purchase option (finding it unenforceable as a penalty). The case was remanded for recalculation of damages consistent with these holdings. In all other respects, the judgment was affirmed. View "CCP Golden/7470 LLC v. Breslin" on Justia Law

Michael Dixon and Kalie Dixon entered into a contract with Best Choice Roofing Alabama, LLC for the replacement of the roof on their home in Washington County, Alabama. After the work was completed, the Dixons noticed leaks and water damage, and despite contacting the company and providing an opportunity to fix the issues, their concerns were not resolved. They alleged that their house became nearly uninhabitable and sought damages for breach of contract and wantonness.Best Choice Roofing Alabama moved to dismiss the claims for improper venue, pointing to a forum-selection clause in the contract requiring any lawsuits to be brought in Sumner County, Tennessee, under Tennessee law. The Dixons argued that enforcing this clause would be seriously inconvenient and deprive them of their day in court, citing financial hardship, the distance to Tennessee, and the location of evidence and witnesses in Alabama. The Washington Circuit Court denied the motion to dismiss, finding the forum-selection clause clearly unreasonable and the chosen forum seriously inconvenient due to the circumstances faced by the Dixons, including their financial situation and the impact of the alleged damage.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss through a petition for writ of mandamus. Applying Alabama law, the Supreme Court held that outbound forum-selection clauses are enforceable unless enforcement would be unfair or unreasonable. The Court found that the Dixons failed to meet their burden to show that enforcement would deprive them of their day in court or that extraordinary facts justified disregarding the clause. The Court concluded that the trial court exceeded its discretion and granted the petition, directing the trial court to dismiss the claims against Best Choice Roofing Alabama. View "Ex parte Best Choice Roofing Alabama, LLC" on Justia Law

A business dispute arose when an individual agreed to sell her furniture and design company to a limited liability company controlled by two individuals for $2.7 million, with payment to be made in installments. The seller also entered into a consulting agreement to assist in the transition but was terminated a few months later. The seller alleged that she did not receive compensation due under the consulting agreement and that the buyer failed to pay the final installment of the purchase price. She asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraudulent inducement, and promissory fraud. The defendants counterclaimed and brought in several third parties, but most of those claims were eventually dismissed, leaving several claims—including for declaratory judgment, conversion, slander, breach of contract, and tortious interference—still pending.The Cullman Circuit Court tried only the seller’s promissory fraud and fraudulent inducement claims against the two individual defendants, entering judgment based on a jury verdict for the seller and awarding over $10 million in damages. The court stayed all claims against the corporate defendants after they filed for bankruptcy. Despite multiple claims and parties remaining, the circuit court certified its judgment against the individuals as final under Rule 54(b) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.Upon review, the Supreme Court of Alabama determined that the circuit court’s Rule 54(b) certification was improper. The Supreme Court found that closely intertwined and factually overlapping claims, counterclaims, and third-party claims remained unresolved, and that proceeding in piecemeal fashion risked inconsistent results and unnecessary duplication. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the circuit court’s order was not properly certified as final and thus was not appealable at this stage. View "Roberson v. Daniel" on Justia Law

The case concerns an automobile accident in Prince George’s County, Maryland, involving George Bowens and a driver named Lisa Daniels, who was at fault. Bowens sustained injuries and held a $50,000 underinsured motorist (UIM) policy with State Farm. Daniels’ insurance had a $30,000 liability limit, which was offered to Bowens as a settlement for his injuries. Following established statutory procedures, Bowens notified State Farm of this offer, State Farm consented and waived subrogation rights, and Bowens accepted the $30,000. Bowens then sought to recover the remaining $20,000 available under his UIM policy from State Farm, which denied the claim.Bowens filed a breach of contract action in the District Court for Prince George’s County, seeking $20,000. State Farm moved to dismiss, arguing that the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Bowens would have to prove total damages of $50,000—exceeding the court’s $30,000 jurisdictional cap. The District Court agreed and dismissed the case. Bowens appealed to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, which affirmed the dismissal, reasoning that the District Court would need to find damages over $30,000 and thus could not grant relief.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and held that the District Court’s jurisdiction is determined by the amount the plaintiff seeks from the defendant in the pending action, not by the total underlying damages or prior settlements received from the tortfeasor’s insurer. Since Bowens’ claim against State Farm was for $20,000, the District Court had jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Maryland reversed the judgment of the circuit court and ordered the case remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. View "Bowens v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins." on Justia Law

Bridgelink Engineering LLC, managed by two individuals, entered into a loan agreement with two banks in August 2021. The loans, totaling $34 million, were initially guaranteed by several LLCs also managed by the same individuals. A few months later, the individuals personally guaranteed Bridgelink’s loan obligations, with a guaranty agreement containing an early-release clause. This clause allowed the individuals to be released from liability if specific conditions were met, including the borrower’s loan being in good standing and compliance with financial covenants for two consecutive quarters. After a default in July 2022, the banks and Bridgelink amended the agreement, but Bridgelink later failed to meet the conditions for waiver of default and remained in default into 2023. Neither Bridgelink nor its guarantors made payments on the loans.The banks sued Bridgelink, the individuals, and the LLCs for breach of contract in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, asserting diversity jurisdiction. The individuals argued they had satisfied the guaranty’s early release conditions, and later challenged the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, contending that one of the banks was a Texas citizen, which would destroy diversity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed both the jurisdictional challenge and the merits. The appellate court held that complete diversity existed as the banks and all defendants were citizens of different states, confirming the district court’s jurisdiction. The court further held that the individuals had not satisfied the conditions for early release from their guaranty obligations because the borrower’s loan was in default and the required confirmations of compliance were not provided for two consecutive quarters. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment holding the individuals liable as guarantors for the loans. View "Cadence Bank v. Johnson" on Justia Law

After a car accident in Prince George’s County, Maryland, George Bowens, who was injured by the clear negligence of another driver, sought to recover compensation for his injuries. The at-fault driver had $30,000 in liability insurance, which was offered to Bowens in settlement. Bowens, however, had a $50,000 underinsured motorist (UIM) policy with his own insurer, State Farm. After accepting the $30,000 from the at-fault driver’s insurer (with State Farm’s consent and waiver of subrogation rights), Bowens sought the remaining $20,000 from State Farm under his UIM policy, claiming breach of contract when State Farm denied the claim.Bowens filed his action in the District Court of Maryland, which has jurisdiction over contract claims not exceeding $30,000. State Farm moved to dismiss, arguing that to recover the $20,000, Bowens would have to prove total damages of $50,000—an amount above the District Court’s jurisdictional cap. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County affirmed, reasoning that the court would need to find Bowens’ damages exceeded $30,000, thus exceeding the District Court's authority.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts. It held that, for purposes of determining the District Court’s jurisdiction under § 4-401(1) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, the relevant amount is the “debt or damages claimed” in the pleadings—that is, the net recovery sought from the defendant in the action—not the plaintiff’s total damages. Because Bowens sought only $20,000 from State Farm, the District Court had jurisdiction to hear the case. The Supreme Court of Maryland remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Bowens v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co." on Justia Law

A dispute arose between a manufacturer of construction equipment and its distributor over a 2012 distribution agreement. The distributor alleged that the manufacturer breached the agreement by selling covered equipment directly to third parties, bypassing the distributor. The manufacturer, in turn, counterclaimed that the distributor failed to pay amounts due under a 2016 rental agreement and for various purchases made between 2016 and 2017. Both parties sought damages and prejudgment interest related to their respective claims and counterclaims.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, after the completion of discovery, granted summary judgment for the distributor on liability for its breach-of-contract claim, leaving damages to be determined by a jury. The court also granted summary judgment for the manufacturer as to both liability and damages on its breach-of-contract counterclaim. A jury awarded the distributor substantial damages for the manufacturer’s breach. The district court denied the manufacturer’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial or remittitur, and later awarded prejudgment interest to the distributor, despite the manufacturer’s objection that the request was untimely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed whether the distributor’s motion for prejudgment interest was timely. The court held that the initial judgment entered by the district court was not sufficiently final, as it omitted reference to the manufacturer’s successful counterclaim and the award of prejudgment interest. As a result, the 28-day deadline for a Rule 59(e) motion was not triggered until a later, comprehensive, final judgment was entered. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s award of prejudgment interest to the distributor. View "Alessi Equip., Inc. v. Am. Piledriving Equip., Inc." on Justia Law