Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Wyatt Energy unilaterally terminated an agreement with Motiva Enterprises granting Motiva exclusive use of logistical and storage services provided by a gasoline distribution terminal owned by Wyatt after Motiva purchased a competing terminal owned by Cargill. Wyatt subsequently sold its terminal to Williams Energy without requiring Williams to assume Wyatt's obligations under the agreement with Motiva. Wyatt then brought this breach of contract action against Motiva. Motiva counterclaimed for breach of contract. Wyatt asserted a special defense of illegality premised on purported antitrust violations arising out of Motiva's purchase of the Cargill terminal. The trial court held in favor of Motiva, and the appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court dismissed Wyatt's appeal, holding that Wyatt's claim that the trial court incorrectly defined the relevant product and geographic markets was moot because, even if Wyatt's proposed market definitions were assumed to be correct, Wyatt could not be afforded any practical relief. View "Wyatt Energy, Inc. v. Motiva Enters., LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant contracted with Plaintiffs to purchase their oil recycling business. The parties carried out the purchase using three contracts. All but one of these contracts, the equipment contract, contained provisions entitling Defendant to attorney's fees in the event Plaintiffs breached the agreements. Plaintiffs later commenced this action seeking damages for Defendant's alleged breach of the contracts and for unjust enrichment. Defendant counterclaimed for breach of contract. The jury found in favor of Defendants on their counterclaim but awarded damages only with respect to Plaintiffs' breach of the equipment contract. The trial court denied Defendant's motion for attorney's fees. The appellate court reversed with respect to attorney's fees. On remand, the trial court denied Defendant's motion for attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court improperly applied the law of the case doctrine under these circumstances and improperly rejected Defendant's motion for attorney's fees without reaching the merits of that claim; and (2) when certain claims provide for a party's recovery of contractual attorney's fees but others do not, a party is nevertheless entitled to reasonable attorneys fees if an apportionment is impracticable because the claims arise from a common factual nucleus and are intertwined. Remanded. View "Total Recycling Servs. of Conn., Inc. v. Conn. Oil Recycling Servs., LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was an additional insured on a commercial general liability insurance policy, which was issued to Plaintiff's tenant (Tenant) by Defendant, Travelers Property Casualty Company (Travelers). Plaintiff sought to invoke Travelers' duty to defend under the policy after Sarah Middeleer was injured in a fall on Plaintiff's property and brought the underlying action against Plaintiff. Plaintiff's insurer, the Netherlands Insurance Company (Netherlands), provided a defense to Plaintiff after Travelers denied any duty to defend Plaintiff in the underlying action. Plaintiff then brought the present action claiming Travelers had a duty to defend Plaintiff in the underlying action and Travelers was obligated to reimburse Netherlands for the defense costs it had expended. The trial court granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The appellate court reversed, concluding that Middeleer's injuries did not arise out of the use of the leased premises under the terms of the policy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the appellate court correctly construed the governing policy language and properly concluded that Travelers did not have a duty to defend Plaintiff. View "Misiti, LLC v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am." on Justia Law

Plaintiff and her husband were traveling in Plaintiff's automobile when Tortfeasor collided with the automobile, causing significant injuries to Plaintiff and her husband. At the time of the collision, the motor vehicle driven by Tortfeasor was underinsured. Plaintiff submitted a claim for underinsured motorist coverage to her Insurer. Insurer refused to provide coverage in light of Plaintiff's recovery under a settlement agreement with Tortfeasor. Subsequently, Plaintiff brought this action seeking underinsured motorist coverage under her policy. The trial court granted summary judgment for Insurer, concluding Insurer was entitled to a setoff equal to the amount of the entire settlement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Insurer was entitled to a reduction of its limits of liability for underinsured motorist coverage by an amount equal to the sum of punitive damages paid to Plaintiff. View "Anastasia v. Gen. Cas. Co. of Wis." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendants seeking a declaratory judgment that, under the doctrine of adverse possession, Plaintiffs were the owners of a parcel of land bordering Defendants' property. The parties reached a settlement agreement providing for a new boundary line between their properties. The agreement provided that Defendants would apply for and pursue a variance from the town zoning board of appeals because the new boundary line left Defendants with slightly less than the minimum frontage requirement. Plaintiffs later filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement, which the trial court granted. The trial court ultimately conveyed the property to Plaintiffs. The appellate court reversed in part and remanded to the trial court with direction to render a judgment of adverse possession in favor of Plaintiffs contingent on the parties' compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement. The Supreme Court granted Defendants' petition for certification to appeal. However, after examining the record, the Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that certification was improvidently granted. View "Vance v. Tassmer" on Justia Law

Defendant's father was a resident at Plaintiff's nursing care facility until his death. After Defendant refused to pay Plaintiff the outstanding bill from her father's assets, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant, claiming breach of contract and fraud. The trial court held in favor of Defendant, concluding that Defendant did not have a power of attorney for her father and did not have access to his checking account or to any of his other financial resources. The court also awarded attorney's fees to Defendant under Conn. Gen. Stat. 42-150bb for successfully defending against a commercial party's action based on a contract. The appellate court reversed in part, concluding that Defendant was not entitled to attorney's fees under section 42-150bb because she was not the personal representative of her father. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the appellate court improperly concluded that, in order to be a "personal representative" entitled to fees under section 42-150bb, Defendant would have to be a legal representative of the party to the contract. Remanded. View "Aaron Manor, Inc. v. Irving" on Justia Law

The parties in this case entered into a written contract under which Plaintiff, a contractor, agreed to install a fence around real property owned by Defendant. Defendant paid a deposit of half of the amount due upon execution of the contract but refused to pay the balance owed on the contract upon substantial completion of the fence. Plaintiff sued Defendant. In his answer, Defendant alleged he was not liable under the contract because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Home Improvement Act by failing to indicate a starting and completion date in the contract. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Plaintiff, concluding that the contract did not comply with the Act but that Defendant invoked the Act in bad faith. The appellate court reversed the award of attorney's fees, costs, and interest, but otherwise directed judgment in favor of Plaintiff for the balance due under the bad faith doctrine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Defendant to pay Plaintiff the balance due. View "Walpole Woodworkers, Inc. v. Manning" on Justia Law

This case arose out of a motor vehicle accident caused by an underinsured motorist in which Plaintiff, an employee of defendant City (Defendant), sustained injuries while operating a private passenger motor vehicle owned by Defendant and acting within the scope of his employment. Plaintiff sought coverage for his remaining damages from Defendant pursuant to its obligation to provide underinsured motorist coverage pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 38a-336(a)(2). Defendant denied Plaintiff's claim because Plaintiff's $50,000 recovery exceeded the purported $20,000 coverage limit of Defendant's plan. The trial court rendered in favor of Defendant, determining the limits of Defendant's underinsured motorist coverage in its capacity as a self-insurer to be the statutory minimum of $20,000 per person and $40,000 per occurrence. The Supreme Court affirmed, albeit under different reasoning, holding that pursuant to the statutory insurance scheme, a self-insurer is deemed to provide the minimum statutory underinsured motorist coverage of $20,000 per accident and $40,00 per occurrence for the benefit of occupants of its private passenger motor vehicles. View "Garcia v. Bridgeport" on Justia Law

This case, which involved the summary suspension of the medical privileges of Plaintiff by Defendant, Bradley Memorial Hospital and Health Center, Inc., came to the Supreme Court for the second time. In Plaintiff's appeal, the Court reversed the judgment of the trial court granting Defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and denying Plaintiff's motion for punitive damages. On remand, Plaintiff was awarded punitive damages and offer of judgment interest. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment, holding that Defendant was entitled to immunity as a matter of law under the federal health Care Quality Improvement Act from money damages arising from its summary suspension of Plaintiff's privileges. Remanded with direction to render judgment in favor of Defendant. View "Harris v. Bradley Mem'l Hosp. & Health Ctr., Inc." on Justia Law

The parcel of land that was the subject of this appeal was once owned by a school. An adjacent property, now owned by Defendants, Eric and Wendy Federer, was previously owned by Wendy's father. In 1990, the school sold its property to a limited liability corporation subject to a set of restrictive covenants that did not expressly reference any third parties. The present action arose when Plaintiff, the current owner of the property, sought permits to develop the school property in a manner inconsistent with the terms of the restrictive covenants. Plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action seeking to establish the unenforceability of the restrictive covenants as to Defendants. Defendants counterclaimed, seeking to quiet title to Plaintiff's property and to enforce the restrictive covenants. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the covenants at issue in this case were not void as a matter of law; and (2) questions of material fact existed as to whether Defendants were entitled to enforce them. Remanded.