Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Porch.com is the parent company of Homeowners of America Insurance Company (HOA), which entered into an agreement with Gallagher Reinsurance (Gallagher) to serve as its reinsurance broker. Gallagher brokered a reinsurance deal for HOA involving Whiterock as the insurer and Vesttoo as a financier, with the understanding that China Construction Bank (CCB) would provide a letter of credit as collateral. Instead, HOA was only given a letter from Yu Po Finance stating a letter of credit would be forthcoming, which was never issued. Gallagher continued to assure HOA that the collateral was valid, leading HOA to authorize a substantial withdrawal by Vesttoo. When it was later revealed that Vesttoo’s collateral was invalid and CCB had never issued the promised letter of credit, HOA suffered financial harm, including increased costs for replacement reinsurance and regulatory intervention.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas heard Porch’s breach-of-contract claims against Gallagher, alleging violations of several sections of their agreement. The district court dismissed all of Porch’s claims with prejudice, finding that Gallagher did not breach the contract and that amending the complaint would be futile.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Porch’s claims under Sections 5 and 11 of the contract, concluding Gallagher had no duty to procure collateral documents from CCB or to comply with Texas insurance laws under the economic sanctions provision. However, the Fifth Circuit reversed the dismissal of Porch’s claim under Section 13, finding that Porch plausibly alleged Gallagher failed to perform administrative services customarily expected of a reinsurance broker after contract placement. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the Section 13 claim. View "Porch.com v. Gallagher Re" on Justia Law

A Canadian citizen married an American citizen in 2017. The couple lived in Canada until 2020, then moved to Hawaii, where the American spouse began working as a physician. The Canadian spouse entered the United States on a tourist visa and soon applied for lawful permanent residency. To support this application, the American spouse signed a federal Affidavit of Support, committing to maintain the non-citizen’s income above 125% of the federal poverty line. The Canadian spouse obtained permanent residency in 2021. Around that time, the marriage ended, and the American spouse moved to Michigan and filed for divorce. In 2022, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and consented divorce judgment in Michigan, in which they resolved all issues—including spousal support—and released any claims against each other.The Canadian spouse later filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging that his former spouse had failed to provide the financial support required by the Affidavit of Support. The former spouse moved to dismiss, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and that the divorce judgment precluded the claim. The district court rejected the jurisdictional argument but agreed that claim preclusion under Michigan law barred the lawsuit, and dismissed the action.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The court held that federal courts must give state court judgments the same preclusive effect they would have under state law, pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Act. The court ruled that Michigan claim preclusion law applied, and that the prior divorce judgment barred the new lawsuit because the claim could have been raised in the divorce proceedings. The court also rejected arguments that federal law or preemption required a different result. View "Ramgoolam v. Gupta" on Justia Law

After Jet Midwest International Co., Ltd. made a $6.5 million loan to Jet Midwest Group, LLC (JMG) for the purchase of a Boeing 737-700, JMG defaulted on repayment. Jet Midwest sued for breach of contract, and when it could not collect on its judgment due to JMG’s lack of funds, Jet Midwest brought claims under the Missouri Fraudulent Transfer Act against several individuals and entities (the Ohadi/Woolley defendants), alleging the improper transfer of assets to avoid payment. Following a bench trial, Jet Midwest prevailed on its claims, and the district court awarded money damages, interest, and set a schedule for further motions on attorney’s fees and costs.Previously, the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri awarded Jet Midwest over $6.5 million in attorney’s fees and costs. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated this award, finding the district court had not properly performed a lodestar calculation for attorney’s fees and had not analyzed which costs were recoverable under federal law. On remand, Jet Midwest reduced its fee request but sought a multiplier; the district court ultimately awarded $5.8 million in attorney’s fees, granted prejudgment interest at 14 percent, and included expert witness fees and other litigation costs. Both sides appealed aspects of this award.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the district court properly calculated and awarded $5.8 million in attorney’s fees but erred in awarding expert witness fees as part of attorney’s fees, as Jet Midwest failed to provide sufficient evidence that such fees were recoverable under the relevant standards. The Eighth Circuit also held that the district court erred in applying a 14 percent prejudgment interest rate and ordered that Missouri’s statutory rate of nine percent should apply. Additionally, the court clarified that, after August 6, 2020, the federal postjudgment interest rate under 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) governs. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with these rulings. View "Jet Midwest International Co., Ltd v. Ohadi" on Justia Law

A seller owned a twelve-unit apartment complex and entered into a written contract to sell the property to a buyer for $1.3 million, with a closing date set on or before November 30, 2021. The contract contained a financing contingency requiring the buyer to provide written proof of financing or inability to obtain financing by November 26, 2021, stating that “time is of the essence.” After the buyer’s bank conditionally approved financing, but anticipated a delay in the appraisal, the buyer informed the seller and attempted to extend the financing deadline. While the seller did not sign proposed written extensions, both parties continued to communicate about closing logistics, including scheduling a closing in December. On December 3, the seller terminated the contract, expressing unwillingness to proceed with the sale.The Superior Court of Hillsborough County denied the seller’s motion for partial summary judgment, rejecting the argument that the buyer’s failure to meet the financing deadline constituted a breach entitling the seller to terminate. The court also denied the seller’s motions in limine to exclude evidence of oral communications and closing agent emails. After a jury trial, the jury found the buyer had not materially breached the contract, that the parties had agreed to extend the closing, and that the seller had materially breached. The trial court then awarded specific performance, ordering the sale to proceed.On appeal, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed. The court held that the seller’s conduct after the missed financing deadline raised a material factual dispute about whether the seller waived its right to declare a default. The court also found that the trial court properly admitted evidence of oral communications and that the longstanding presumption favoring specific performance in land sale contracts applied, even where the buyer was an investor. The trial court’s judgment was affirmed. View "J&C Properties v. Rayster Realty" on Justia Law

A company that designs and manufactures interactive technology products entered into reseller agreements with another company, granting the latter exclusive rights to sell its products in certain territories. Several years later, the manufacturer revoked the exclusivity, after which the reseller’s owner and his son developed a competing product. The manufacturer then terminated the reseller relationship. Subsequently, the reseller sued the manufacturer in South Carolina state court for various business torts and contract claims. The parties settled and executed a written agreement that broadly released and dismissed any and all claims and counterclaims that could have been brought in the litigation, including through a specific handwritten provision. Nevertheless, shortly after, the manufacturer initiated a federal lawsuit, alleging intellectual property violations related to the competing product.The state court dismissed the original action with prejudice, including all possible claims and counterclaims. In the federal action, the defendants argued that the settlement agreement and res judicata barred the new claims. The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina initially allowed certain claims to proceed, but after further evidence and reconsideration, it granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding the claims precluded by the settlement and the state court’s dismissal. A jury was then impaneled for trial on the defendants’ counterclaims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The Court of Appeals held that the manufacturer’s claims were barred by res judicata based on the settlement and state court order, as the language of the agreement and the parties’ intent encompassed the intellectual property claims. The appellate court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s evidentiary rulings, its reconsideration of summary judgment, or the conduct of the trial, and affirmed the judgment in full. View "Clear Touch Interactive, Inc. v. The Ockers Company" on Justia Law

The dispute arose from a business venture related to agricultural investments in Brazil. In 2007, an investment firm transferred funds totaling over $800,000 to another company to cover farm-related expenses, allegedly with the understanding that these funds would be repaid once the farm became profitable and prior to any distributions to owners. The parties later executed a written document summarizing their agreement, which stated that the investment firm would recover its funding when a newly formed management company generated fees. Despite the farm ultimately turning a profit years later, the management company never generated fees and the transferred funds were never repaid.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa considered claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment. The court found that the written contract unambiguously set out the terms of repayment, which were not satisfied because the management company never generated fees. It also concluded that the document was fully integrated, barring admission of extrinsic evidence to vary its terms. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims, finding no genuine dispute of material fact.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the summary judgment rulings de novo. The appellate court held that the record did not contain sufficient evidence to support the claim that the written agreement was not fully integrated. It also found that the lack of an integration clause and the plaintiff’s testimony did not create a genuine dispute about integration. The court concluded that, because the contract was fully integrated, extrinsic evidence could not be used to alter its terms, and that implied contract and quasi-contract claims were precluded. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Galtere, Inc. v. Harvest Capital Asset Mgmt." on Justia Law

A woman was injured after slipping and falling in the parking lot of an automobile repair shop. She filed a claim with the shop’s insurance provider, which began covering some medical and wage expenses. After the insurance company’s representative informed her that liability for her claim was being accepted, the claimant ceased gathering evidence or seeking legal counsel, believing liability would not be contested. Over two years later, when settlement negotiations failed, she retained an attorney and sued both the repair shop and the insurer. After settling with the shop and dismissing it from the lawsuit, the claimant pursued multiple claims against the insurer, including breach of contract, promissory estoppel, spoliation, and equitable estoppel, contending that the insurer’s communications led her to detrimentally alter her conduct regarding evidence collection.The Fourth Judicial District Court initially indicated from the bench that the insurer was estopped from denying liability, but ultimately denied the claimant’s motion for partial summary judgment and granted summary judgment to the insurer on all claims. The District Court concluded that under Montana law as it existed before a 2023 statutory amendment, a third-party claimant could only bring statutory or common law bad faith claims against an insurer for mishandling a claim, and that the claimant had not sufficiently pled or could not prove the elements of her other asserted causes of action.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana held that, under the pre-2023 version of Montana law, third-party claimants are not restricted to statutory or common law bad faith claims and may assert other causes of action such as breach of contract or torts based on how an insurer handled a claim. The Court affirmed summary judgment for the insurer on promissory estoppel, breach of contract, and insufficiently pled claims, but reversed summary judgment on spoliation and equitable estoppel, remanding those claims for further proceedings. View "D'Hooge v. Cincinnati Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Two Illinois residents obtained online loans of $600 each from a lender operating under the laws of the Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, with interest rates approaching 500% per year. The loan agreements included an arbitration clause, which delegated to the arbitrator all questions including the enforceability and formation of the agreement, specifying that such issues would be determined under “tribal law and applicable federal law.” At the time the loans were issued, the referenced tribal law did not exist.After receiving the loans, the borrowers filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of Illinois consumer-protection statutes and federal laws. The defendants moved to compel arbitration under the terms of the loan agreements. The district court denied the motion, finding that the arbitration and delegation provisions were unenforceable because they effectively forced the plaintiffs to waive their substantive rights under Illinois law, applying the “prospective waiver” doctrine.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial de novo. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no mutual assent to the arbitration and delegation provisions. The court determined that, at the time of contracting, the specified tribal law did not exist, and federal law does not supply substantive contract-formation rules. Because the contract’s governing law provision referred to a body of law that was nonexistent and subject to unilateral creation by the defendants’ affiliate, there was no meeting of the minds as to an essential term. The Seventh Circuit concluded that the absence of mutual assent rendered the arbitration and delegation provisions unenforceable and affirmed the district court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration. View "Harris v W6LS, Inc." on Justia Law

Kendell Seafood Imports, Inc. and Mark Foods, LLC are both fish importers. Kendell alleged that Mark Foods tortiously interfered with its agreement with Chilean Sea Bass, Inc. (CSB), a fish distributor. According to Kendell, it had arranged with CSB to purchase the distributor’s entire catch for several years, including 2021, and that CSB agreed to roll over an outstanding 2020 balance into the 2021 price. Kendell further claimed that Mark Foods was aware of this agreement and attempted to solicit business from CSB during the same period, thereby interfering with Kendell’s relationship and causing it harm.After Kendell initially sued Mark Foods for tortious interference in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, Mark Foods moved to dismiss the complaint. In response, Kendell filed an amended complaint with similar facts but with additional details about the agreement with CSB. The district court treated the amended complaint as operative and, after considering substantive arguments from both parties, granted Mark Foods’ motion to dismiss with prejudice. The district court found that Kendell’s allegations did not plausibly support three essential elements of tortious interference: the defendant’s knowledge of the contract, intentional interference, and resulting damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case on appeal. It held that the district court properly applied the pending motion to dismiss to the amended complaint, as the amendments did not affect the relevant arguments. Applying Rhode Island law, the First Circuit concluded that Kendell had not sufficiently pleaded that Mark Foods knew about the specific agreement with CSB. Because this element was not plausibly alleged, the court affirmed the district court’s order dismissing the case with prejudice. View "Kendell Seafood Imports, Inc. v. Mark Foods, LLC" on Justia Law

Minority shareholders of an Argentine oil and gas company, previously privatized in 1993, became involved in litigation after the Argentine government expropriated a majority stake in the company in 2012. The government’s acquisition of shares was conducted without making a public tender offer to minority shareholders, a process that was explicitly required by the company’s bylaws to protect such shareholders in the event of a takeover. The plaintiffs, consisting of Spanish entities and a New York hedge fund, had acquired significant stakes in the company, and after the expropriation, they claimed that they suffered substantial financial losses due to the government’s failure to comply with the tender offer requirement.The plaintiffs sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims under Argentine law against both the Argentine Republic and the company. After extensive litigation, the district court found in favor of the plaintiffs on their breach of contract claims against the Argentine Republic, awarding over $16 billion in damages, but granted summary judgment to the company, finding it had no obligation to enforce the tender offer provision. The court also dismissed the promissory estoppel claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs' breach of contract damages claims against the Argentine Republic and the company were not cognizable under Argentine law, reasoning that the bylaws did not create enforceable bilateral obligations between shareholders and that Argentine public law governing expropriation precluded such claims. The court affirmed the dismissal of the promissory estoppel claims and judgment in favor of the company, but reversed the judgment against the Argentine Republic, remanding for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Petersen Energía v. Argentine Republic" on Justia Law