Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

An individual purchased a long-term care insurance policy that covered expenses incurred at nursing or assisted living facilities. During the COVID-19 pandemic, at age 94, the insured fractured her hip and, due to concerns about contracting COVID-19 in a communal setting, received post-surgical care at home as prescribed by her physician. When she submitted a claim for these home health care expenses, the insurance company denied coverage, stating that her policy did not include home care benefits. The insured had selected a policy that covered only institutional care, though an alternative plan of care provision allowed for non-institutional benefits if certain conditions were met, including mutual agreement between the insured, her provider, and the insurer.The insured, through her successor trustees, filed a breach of contract action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court found in favor of the insurer, holding that the policy did not provide home health care benefits, and that the denial of coverage under the alternative plan of care provision was not in bad faith because the insured had not met the necessary conditions to trigger that provision.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. The court held that the policy did not provide for home health care benefits, as required for the relevant Illinois insurance regulation to apply. The court also determined that the alternative plan of care provision was discretionary and did not guarantee coverage for home care. Additionally, the insurer did not breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by enforcing the explicit terms of the policy. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Hartnett v Jackson National Life Insurance Company" on Justia Law

A venture capitalist and two scientists, who had previously collaborated on successful biotechnology companies, engaged in discussions and took steps toward forming a new enterprise to develop and commercialize carbon-hydrogen bond activation technology. As these discussions progressed, disagreements arose regarding the scale of initial funding needed. The scientists believed more substantial investment was required than the amount offered by the venture capitalist. Ultimately, the scientists pursued alternative sources of funding, and the parties’ collaboration did not materialize into a finalized business.After this breakdown, the venture capitalist and his company filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of San Diego County against the two scientists, alleging breach of oral and implied joint venture agreements, breach of fiduciary duty, promissory estoppel, and quantum meruit. The scientists moved for summary judgment. The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the scientists on all claims. The court found that any oral or implied joint venture agreement was barred by the statute of frauds, there was no enforceable agreement, and the plaintiffs had not expected compensation directly from the defendants.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case de novo. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the statute of frauds applies to oral or implied joint venture agreements that, by their terms, cannot be performed within one year. The court found no genuine dispute that developing the technology would necessarily take more than one year, rendering the alleged joint venture unenforceable. The breach of fiduciary duty claim failed because it depended on a valid joint venture. The promissory estoppel and quantum meruit claims failed due to the absence of clear and unambiguous promises and because compensation was expected from the venture, not the defendants directly. The judgment was affirmed. View "Clarke v. Yu" on Justia Law

A South Korean video game conglomerate acquired a U.S.-based game studio known for its hit title, Subnautica, in 2021. The acquisition terms included a $500 million upfront payment and a possible $250 million in contingent earnout payments. To secure the studio’s continued creative success, the buyer contractually guaranteed that the founders and CEO would retain operational control and could only be terminated for cause. As the studio prepared to release Subnautica 2, internal projections showed that the game would likely trigger the large earnout payment. Fearing the contract was too generous, the buyer’s leadership sought ways to block the earnout, including consulting an AI chatbot for takeover strategies. The buyer then locked the studio out of its publishing platform, posted critical messages on its website, and fired the founders and CEO, initially claiming a lack of game readiness as cause.After the representative of the former shareholders sued in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, the buyer changed its justification, asserting that the executives had abandoned their roles and improperly downloaded company data. The court found that both the studio’s leadership transitions and the data downloads were transparent, known to, and accepted by the buyer before the terminations. The court also found that the buyer’s new grounds for termination were pretextual and not supported by the evidence.The Court of Chancery held that the buyer breached the acquisition agreement by terminating the key employees without cause and usurping their operational control. As a remedy, the court ordered specific performance: the CEO was reinstated with full operational authority, and the earnout period was equitably extended by the duration of his ouster. Issues regarding potential damages for lost earnout revenue were reserved for a later phase. View "Fortis Advisors, LLC v. Krafton, Inc." on Justia Law

A group of workers was injured in a workplace accident at a South Texas refinery when a fire-suppression system, supplied and programmed by Scallon Controls, Inc., unexpectedly discharged after losing power. The workers sued S&B Engineers & Constructors, Ltd. and Sunoco Logistics Partners, the companies responsible for the project. S&B and Sunoco then brought third-party claims against Scallon, alleging breach of contract and seeking indemnification under their agreement, which included a proportional indemnity provision. Following four years of litigation, S&B and Sunoco settled with the injured workers, fully resolving the tort claims. S&B and its insurer, Zurich American Insurance Company, subsequently sought to recover from Scallon a proportional share of the settlement, corresponding to Scallon’s alleged share of fault.The trial court granted summary judgment for Scallon, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth District of Texas affirmed, relying on prior Supreme Court of Texas decisions, notably Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Jinkins and Ethyl Corp. v. Daniel Construction Co. The appellate court held that S&B and Zurich could not maintain an indemnity claim after settling, and that Zurich’s claim was time-barred.The Supreme Court of Texas reversed, holding that neither Jinkins nor Ethyl precludes enforcement of a freely negotiated, proportional indemnification agreement after settlement. The Court clarified that such contracts are distinct from common law or statutory contribution rights and that parties may contract for comparative indemnity, so long as the contract does not require indemnification for the indemnitee’s own negligence unless stated with specific language. The Court also held that Zurich’s claim was timely, as the limitations period began to run at settlement. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine whether S&B and Zurich can establish Scallon’s proportional liability and the reasonableness of the settlement. View "S&B ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCTORS, LTD. v. SCALLON CONTROLS, INC." on Justia Law

Equinor contracted with Lindale to supply water for hydraulic fracturing operations in North Dakota. The agreement established that Lindale would build a pipeline to deliver water, financed by Equinor’s predecessor, who would then own the pipeline. In exchange, Lindale would serve as the exclusive supplier and pumper of water “on the Pipeline,” at below-market rates. Years later, after Equinor acquired its predecessor, technological advances enabled water delivery via lay-flat hoses, a method cheaper than using the pipeline. Equinor began purchasing water from other suppliers using this new method, rather than from Lindale.Lindale sued Equinor for breach of contract in the District Court, arguing that the exclusivity clause gave Lindale the exclusive right to supply water for all of Equinor’s fracking operations. The district court found the relevant contract provision ambiguous and submitted its interpretation to a jury. The jury found for Lindale and awarded $26 million in damages. The Texas Court of Appeals for the First District affirmed, concluding that Equinor had breached the contract and that the damages award was not excessive.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and determined that the contract was unambiguous. The court interpreted the exclusivity clause to apply solely to water supplied “on the Pipeline,” as defined by the contract, and not to all water delivered to Equinor’s wells by other means. As a result, Equinor’s purchase of water from other suppliers for wells not “on the Pipeline” did not breach the contract. The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and rendered judgment for Equinor, holding that there was no breach as a matter of law. View "EQUINOR ENERGY LP v. LINDALE PIPELINE, LLC" on Justia Law

An Ohio company that manufactures merchandise brought a lawsuit against an Arkansas toy company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, alleging breach of a loan agreement and, later, breach of a contract for the sale of a large quantity of plush toys. The Arkansas company denied the allegations and filed counterclaims, asserting that it had paid for plush toys that were never delivered. The district court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims regarding the loan agreement. On the remaining claims, the court granted summary judgment to the Arkansas company on the breach of contract claim after determining that no contract for the sale of 250,000 plush toys ever existed between the parties, but allowed the counterclaims to proceed to trial. Following a bench trial, the court ruled in favor of the Arkansas company on its breach of contract counterclaim and awarded damages.After these rulings, the Arkansas company moved for attorney’s fees and expenses under Arkansas law. The district court awarded a reduced amount in fees and expenses, rejecting the Ohio company’s arguments that the fee request was untimely and that fees for successfully defending the breach of contract claim were not recoverable. The Ohio company appealed the fee award to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding the fee motion timely under the local rules, nor by awarding fees related to the successful “no contract” defense. The appellate court concluded that Arkansas law permits such an award, and that precedent cited by the appellant did not require a different result. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Just Funky, LLC v. Think 3 Fold, LLC" on Justia Law

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. operated a health plan primarily using its own facilities, but its members sometimes sought emergency medical care at non-Kaiser hospitals, including Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center. From 2004 until late 2017, Kaiser reimbursed Pomona Valley Hospital for emergency services at contractual rates under a written agreement. After Kaiser terminated this contract in 2017, it began paying Pomona Valley Hospital at a lower, unilaterally determined rate. Dissatisfied with these payments for services rendered from October 2017 through March 2020, Pomona Valley Hospital sued Kaiser in quantum meruit, seeking the asserted reasonable value of its emergency services, which it claimed was approximately $66 million more than what Kaiser had paid.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County held a jury trial in which Pomona Valley Hospital prevailed, and the jury awarded the full amount sought. Kaiser moved for a new trial, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred by admitting the parties’ prior contract into evidence. The trial court agreed that admitting the contract was legal error but found the error only affected damages, not liability, and conditionally granted a new trial unless Pomona Valley Hospital accepted a remittitur, reducing the award by about $8 million. Pomona Valley Hospital accepted the remittitur, and judgment was entered. Kaiser appealed, and Pomona Valley Hospital cross-appealed, claiming the new trial should not have been granted.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two, held that the trial court erred in granting Kaiser’s new trial motion. The appellate court concluded the contract was properly admitted because its exclusionary clause only applied to regulatory valuations, not to common law quantum meruit actions like this one. The court also rejected Kaiser’s other arguments except for the prejudgment interest rate, holding that interest should be awarded at 7 percent, not 10 percent. The appellate court reversed the new trial order, vacated the amended judgment, and remanded for entry of judgment on the jury’s original verdict, subject to the corrected interest rate. View "Pomona Valley Hospital v. Kaiser Foundation Health etc." on Justia Law

An employee of a major defense contractor, serving in a senior internal audit role, claimed to have discovered fraudulent activity involving government contracts for military aircraft. The contractor, which assembles aircraft using parts supplied by numerous subcontractors, is subject to detailed regulatory requirements intended to ensure fair pricing, including the Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). The plaintiff alleged that the contractor systematically ignored and concealed fraudulent inflation of cost and pricing data by its subcontractors, resulting in overbilling the government.The plaintiff brought a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA), which allows private individuals to sue on behalf of the government. Previously, another relator had filed a separate FCA action against the same contractor, alleging a different fraudulent scheme: obtaining parts in bulk at a discount but charging the government full price. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, ruling that the FCA’s “first-to-file” bar applied because the earlier action covered the same essential elements of fraud.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The appellate court found that the two complaints alleged distinct fraudulent schemes: one involving bulk pricing manipulation, and the other involving the submission of inflated subcontractor cost data. The Fifth Circuit held that the first-to-file bar under the FCA did not apply because the plaintiff’s complaint was based on a different mechanism of fraud, not merely additional details or locations of the same scheme. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Ferguson v. Lockheed Martin" on Justia Law

A group of bondholders sought to recover principal payments owed on defaulted Argentine sovereign bonds. These investors had previously participated in Argentina’s Tax Credit Program, depositing their bonds with an Argentine trustee, Caja de Valores S.A., in exchange for certificates representing principal and interest. After the Republic failed to pay the principal at maturity, the bondholders initially sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. That court dismissed the case primarily on the ground that, under Argentine law, only the trustee had authority to sue on the bonds, and the Second Circuit affirmed. The bondholders then obtained authorization from an Argentine court to sue and filed a new complaint in New York.The district court again dismissed their claims, mainly for two reasons. First, it found all claims were barred by New York’s six-year statute of limitations for contract actions, holding that the state’s “savings statute” (N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 205(a)) did not apply because the prior dismissal was for lack of personal jurisdiction. It also concluded that tolling provisions in New York’s COVID-era executive orders did not apply absent an equitable showing. Second, the court held that collateral estoppel barred the bondholders from relitigating issues related to standing and jurisdiction previously decided.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It agreed that the savings statute did not apply but held that the COVID-era executive orders tolled the limitations period automatically, without any equitable showing. This made some claims timely (those on the AR16 Bonds) but not others (those on the GD65 Bonds). The Second Circuit further ruled that collateral estoppel did not preclude the bondholders from litigating whether they had authority to sue, and that—under Argentine law, with the new court authorization—they now had such authority. The judgment was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bugliotti v. The Republic of Argentina" on Justia Law

Two attorneys verbally agreed to jointly propose providing legal services to a public entity for Hurricane Katrina-related insurance claims on a contingency fee basis. After a meeting with the entity’s officials, they submitted several joint proposals, all based on a contingency fee arrangement. The entity, however, offered only an hourly fee contract, which one attorney accepted and the other declined to participate in. Subsequently, the accepting attorney was retained alone and performed all legal work. Over a year later, the entity entered a contingency fee agreement with the accepting attorney and another law firm. The attorney who had declined the hourly arrangement was not included in this contract and performed no work for the entity.The Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans held a bench trial and found that a valid oral joint venture existed between the two attorneys when the contingency fee contract was executed. It concluded that the accepting attorney breached his fiduciary duty by failing to inform the other of the opportunity to participate, awarding damages equal to half the contingency fee. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed, reasoning that the contract breach—not attorney fee rules—was controlling, and upheld the damages award.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case and found clear legal errors in the lower courts’ analysis. The Court held that the initial joint venture terminated when the entity refused the proposed contingency fee arrangement, and no enforceable joint venture or other contractual relationship existed thereafter. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct govern such relationships and preclude fee-sharing without written client consent and meaningful legal services by all lawyers involved. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ judgments and entered judgment for the defendant, holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to any portion of the contingency fee. View "SPEARS VS. HALL" on Justia Law