Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

In 2004-2005, Costa & Son Construction performed site work for the general contractor (Braitt) on such a project in Bridgewater. After Braitt terminated the relationship Costa sued, alleging breach of contract and violations of G.L. c. 93A. Costa sought to recover damages under a payment bond obtained by Brait from Arch Insurance, G.L. c. 149, 29. Brait asserted similar counterclaims against Costa. Arch argued that Costa had relinquished any right to claim against the bond pursuant to a provision of his subcontract with Brait. The trial court granted Brait and Arch directed verdict with respect to claims under the bond. A jury returned a verdict for Costa, against Brait. The Massachusetts Supreme Court vacated the directed verdict. A subcontractor on a public construction project for which a payment bond has been obtained by the general contractor pursuant to G.L. c. 149, 29, may not by private agreement forgo its right to pursue payment under the bond. The court also vacated the portion of the amended judgment granting consequential damages to Costa; consequential damages were precluded by the contract. View "Costa v. Brait Builders Corp." on Justia Law

Contractor contracted to build a restaurant in Minnesota, promising to pay each subcontractor, upon receipt of payment from the owner, the amount to which the subcontractor was entitled. Appellant became the subcontractor for carpentry and drywall work. Upon completing its work, Appellant was not paid the full amount owed. After Contractor settled a dispute with the restaurant, it offered Appellant a smaller sum, claiming it was Appellant's pro rata share of the settlement proceeds. Appellant rejected the offer and sued Contractor and its Owner in state court. Owner and his wife subsequently filed a petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief, with the debt to Appellant unsatisfied. Appellant commenced this adversary proceeding to have the debt declared nondischargeable. The bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) determined that neither 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(4) nor 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6) barred discharge of the debt. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Owner was not a section 523(a)(4) fiduciary by reason of a Minnesota statute or Owner's Minnesota common law duties, nor did Contractor's use of its own property amount to embezzlement; and (2) the BAP did not err in finding no malicious injury, which resolved the section 523(a)(6) issue. View "Reshetar Sys., Inc. v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Winforge claimed that defendants breached a hotel development agreement between the parties, causing delay and costs that caused Winforge to default on the separate construction loan agreement between the parties. Defendants cross-claimed that Winforge breached the development agreement. The district court ruled in favor of the defendants and found that the parties had never entered into a final, enforceable contract. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Even a signed writing is not a contract if there is no mutual assent or “distinct intention common to both;” the parties continued to exchange new drafts of the Scope of Work even after they had signed the Agreement. To the extent that defendants incurred any obligations, their failure to perform was not a breach because that failure was due to Winforge’s deficient performance of Winforge’s duties.

Plaintiff-Appellant Mid-Continent Casualty Company ("Mid-Continent") brought a declaratory judgment action seeking determination of its coverage obligations related to construction defect litigation. Defendant-Appellee, The Village at Deer Creek Homeowners Association, Inc. (the "Association"), moved to dismiss, requesting that the district court not exercise jurisdiction over Mid-Continent's action. Weighing the five factors set forth in "State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Mhoon," (31 F.3d 979, 982–83 (10th Cir. 1994)), the district court declined jurisdiction in favor of resolution in Missouri state court and dismissed the action. Mid-Continent appealed, arguing the district court's application of the "Mhoon" factors amounted to an abuse of discretion. Upon review of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit affirmed its order granting the Association's motion to dismiss.

In this breach of contract case, the Supreme Court considered whether the district court erred in denying Defendant's motion for a new trial based on several rulings by the district court that Defendant claimed materially affected his rights and denied him a fair trial. The district court refused Defendant's request to exclude exhibits disclosed by Plaintiff the day before trial in violation of the district court's pretrial scheduling order. Additionally, the district court refused the request to declare a mistrial when Plaintiff testified to certain matters in violation of the district court's stipulated ruling on a motion in limine and denied Defendant's motion for a directed verdict. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial because it concluded the district court abused its discretion in admitting the exhibits into evidence. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals and affirmed the district court, holding that Defendant had not shown the district court committed any error in its decisions during the trial that substantially prejudiced Defendant's rights to a fair trial. Thus, Defendant was not entitled to a new trial.

The facts of this case were "clear and undisputed; in point of fact, they are a textbook example of a mechanic's-lien dispute." Plaintiff, GSM Industrial, Inc., was a subcontractor that entered into an agreement with AirPol, Inc., a general contractor, to install an air-pollution-control mechanism on property owned by Defendant Grinnell Fire Protection Systems Company, Inc. When AirPol failed to pay GSM the balance of its fee, GSM filed a complaint to enforce a mechanic's lien against Grinnell. The particular issue before the Supreme Court was whether a notarial acknowledgment in a subcontractor's notice of intention satisfied the statutory requirement that such a statement be "under oath." A justice of the Superior Court ruled that a Pennsylvania notary public's "acknowledgement" was insufficient to satisfy the oath requirement, and, as a result, the notice was fatally defective. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed, and affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.

Plaintiff Phaneuf Funeral Home appealed a superior court order that granted motions for summary judgment in favor of Defendants Little Giant Pump Company, Boyer Interior Design, Leviton Manufacturing Company and The Elegant Earth, Inc. Phaneuf hired Boyer to do interior design and light renovation work in the basement and adjacent hallway of the funeral home. In the hallway, Boyer installed a wall-mounted water fountain that it purchased from Elegant, an Alabama-based household goods retailer. Defendant Leviton supplied the fountain’s power cord to Little Giant, which manufactured the fountain. A fire broke out at the funeral home. Alleging that the water fountain’s defective pump and power cord caused the fire, Phaneuf brought negligence and strict product liability claims against each defendant, although it later withdrew its negligence claim against Boyer. Each defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that Phaneuf’s claims were time-barred by RSA 508:4-b, I (2010), the statute of repose for “Damages From Construction.” The superior court agreed, and granted each motion. Upon review of the facts in the superior court record, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's grant of summary judgment as to Boyer, but reversed as to the remaining defendants. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Town & Country Property, L.L.C., and Town & Country Ford, L.L.C. (collectively referred to as "T&C") appealed a circuit court's grant of summary judgment Amerisure Insurance Company and Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company (collectively referred to as "Amerisure"), holding that Amerisure was not obligated to pay a $650,100 judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of T&C and against Amerisure's insured, Jones-Williams Construction Company, because, the trial court reasoned, the faulty construction of the T&C facility upon which the judgment was based was not an "occurrence" covered under the commercial general-liability ("CGL") insurance policy Amerisure had issued Jones-Williams. On October 21, 2011, the Supreme Court affirmed in part the judgment entered by the trial court, agreeing that faulty construction did not in and of itself constitute an occurrence for CGL-policy purposes and that, accordingly, "Amerisure was not required to indemnify Jones-Williams for the judgment entered against it insofar as the damages represented the costs of repairing or replacing the faulty work." On remand, the parties filed briefs with the trial court: T&C argued that the vast majority of the $650,100 judgment should be attributed to covered damage, while Amerisure argued that the damages T&C sought for the repair and/or replacement of defective construction exceeded the amount of the verdict and thus none of the judgment should be attributed to covered damage to personal property or nondefective portions of the T&C property. In its order resolving the issue on remand, the trial court identified $257,500 in damages claimed by T&C at trial as representing the repair or replacement of faulty construction. It therefore subtracted that amount from the $650,100 awarded by the jury and awarded T&C $392,600 plus interest and costs. Upon a review of the record, the Supreme Court found that the $392,600 judgment entered by the trial court was not supported by the evidence. The judgment entered by the trial court on remand was accordingly reversed, and the case was again remanded for the trial court to enter a final judgment in favor of T&C for the amount of damages the Supreme Court deemed T&C was entitled to: $600.

Access to the Ambassador Bridge between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario necessitated traversing city streets. The state contracted with the Company, which owns the Bridge, to construct new approaches from interstate roads. The contract specified separate jobs for the state and the Company. In 2010, the state obtained a state court order, finding the Company in breach of contract and requiring specific performance. The Company sought an order to open ramps constructed by the state, asserting that this was necessary to complete its work. The court denied the motion and held Company officials in contempt. In a 2012 settlement, the court ordered the Company to relinquish its responsibilities to the state and establish a $16 million fund to ensure completion. Plaintiffs, trucking companies that use the bridge, sought an injunction requiring the state to immediately open the ramps. The district court dismissed claims under the dormant Commerce Clause, the motor carriers statute, 49 U.S.C. 14501(c), and the Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 49 U.S.C. 31114(a)(2). The Sixth Circuit affirmed. For purposes of the Commerce Clause and statutory claims, the state is acting in a proprietary capacity and, like the private company, is a market participant when it joins the bridge company in constructing ramps.

White-Spunner Construction, Inc., and Hartford Fire Insurance Company ("Hartford") appealed the grant of summary judgment and the award of attorney fees in favor of Construction Completion Company, LLC ("CCC"), in CCC's action alleging that White-Spunner failed to pay it for labor and materials it provided as a subcontractor to White-Spunner in the fall of 2008 in conjunction with White-Spunner's work as the general contractor on a public-works project at Auburn University CCC cross-appealed, arguing that the Mobile Circuit Court erred in dismissing its bad-faith and fraud claims against Hartford, which had issued payment bonds to White-Spunner for the project. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the grant of summary judgment based on the fact that CCC's claims against White-Spunner and Hartford stemmed from an illegal contract CCC entered into with an unlicensed contractor that provided that contractor's employees would complete the work CCC was contracted to perform. As a result of this reversal, the Court dismissed the cross-appeal as moot.