Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court awarding Respondent damages following a bench trial denying each Petitioner the ability to present a witness at a bench trial on damages, holding that the lower court's order was deficient and required this case to be reversed and remanded to the circuit court.Following the bench trial, the circuit court granted Respondent damages in the amount of $87,377, which represented the gross amounts from two unpaid invoices plus interest and late fees. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court's order did not comply with the requirements of Rule 52(a), nor did the circuit court make the required findings of fact or conclusions of law orally as permitted by the rule, thus rendering the order insufficient for this Court to undertake a proper appellate review. View "Warrior Oil & Gas, LLC v. Blue Land Services, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the superior court granting motions to stay the superior court proceedings in four cases and refer them to arbitration in this construction dispute, holding that that superior court correctly found that these disagreement must be resolved through arbitration.Plaintiff substituted itself as the plaintiff and assignee of three subcontractors in in three mechanics' liens actions and then filed an additional complaint against the assignee of nine further subcontractors. Plaintiff further filed a complaint claiming it was owed $854,352 from Defendants. Defendants moved to stay the proceedings in all five cases and refer them to arbitration. The trial justice found that the language of the subcontracts required mandatory arbitration for the disputes and compelled the parties to participate in mandatory arbitration. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the disputes must be referred for arbitration. View "Petrolex II LLC v. Bailey Group LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court remanded this case stemming from a labor dispute between a union and city, holding that remand was required to establish whether the city complied with Local Government Code Chapter 174's compensation standards.When the City of Houston and the Houston Professional Fire Fighters' Association, Local 341 could not agree to an employment contract the Fire Fighters sued the City for compensation under the Fire and Police Employee Relations Act, codified in Chapter 174, claiming that the City failed to meet Chapter 174's compensation standards. Thereafter, the City's voters approved the "pay-parity amendment" amending the City's charter. The Houston Police Officers' Union sued the Fire Fighters seeking a declaration that Chapter 174 preempted the pay-parity amendment, rendering it unenforceable. In the first action, the trial court rejected the constitutional and immunity challenges brought by the City, and the court of appeals affirmed. In the second action, the court of appeals reversed, concluding that state law did not preempt the amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed as to the initial suit and reversed as to the second suit, holding (1) Chapter 174 does not violate constitutional separation of powers principles; (2) the Fire Fighters met the prerequisites for seeking Chapter 174 enforcement; and (3) Chapter 174 preempts the pay-parity amendment. View "City of Houston v. Houston Professional Fire Fighters' Ass'n, Local 341" on Justia Law

Santa Clara Valley Water District was insured by Century. In 2000, the District notified Century that it had been advised by the federal government of potential claims for natural resource damages resulting from mercury contamination in the Guadalupe River Watershed (NRD Claim). Century requested additional information, including the status of negotiations. Century made several similar requests to the District between 2000-2002. In 2001, Century indicated that it had no duties under the primary policies because there was no lawsuit pending, had no duty to indemnify the District under the excess policies until the underlying limits of the policies had been exhausted, and was reserving its rights under the policies. The District subsequently signed a tolling agreement, was sued in federal court, and entered a Consent Decree without notifying Century.In 2008, the District notified Century of the existence of the lawsuit and the Consent Decree and stated that it had incurred $4 million in costs to comply with the Consent Decree. Century cited a No Voluntary Payment (NVP) provision. The District did not contact Century until 2014, when it completed its required Consent Decree work. In 2015, the District sued Century.The court of appeal affirmed summary judgment for Century. The NVP provisions barred the District from seeking indemnification for the expenses it incurred under the Consent Decree, without notifying Century or obtaining its consent. Those provisions apply to the settlement even though it was achieved through a consent decree rather than a traditional settlement agreement. Because the NRD Claim was disposed of by that settlement, there was no “adjudication” that gave rise to an “ultimate net loss” that gave the District the right to pay and seek indemnification. View "Santa Clara Valley Water District v. Century Indemnity Co." on Justia Law

Vivera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Vivera) was developing a medical test kit, but had received “negative publicity” from its litigation with a rival company. Vivera hired Sitrick Group, LLC (Sitrick) to manage a public relations campaign. Vivera did not make any payments and Sitrick filed demands for arbitration with Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS). Judge Swart was selected to serve as an arbitrator in a separate matter between Sitrick and Legacy Development (the Legacy matter). In that matter, Sitrick was employing the same law firm (but a different lawyer) as was representing it in the arbitration with Vivera. Sitrick filed petitions to confirm the arbitration award. Vivera asked the trial court to vacate the arbitrator’s award due to Judge Swart’s inadequate disclosure of the Legacy matter. The trial court issued an order confirming the arbitrator’s award.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court explained that the California Arbitration Act (the Act) requires arbitrators to disclose, among other things, matters that the Ethics Standards for Neutral Arbitrators in Contractual Arbitration (Ethics Standards) dictate must be disclosed. At issue here is whether the Ethics Standards require a retained arbitrator in a noncommercial case to disclose in one matter that he has been subsequently hired in a second matter by the same party and the same law firm. The court held “no,” at least where the arbitrator has previously informed the parties—without any objection thereto—that no disclosure will be forthcoming in this scenario. Because the arbitrator’s disclosures were proper here, the trial court properly overruled an objection based on inadequate disclosure. View "Sitrick Group v. Vivera Pharmaceuticals" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the district court granting partial summary judgment for Plaintiff and its subsequent judgment in Plaintiff's favor in this breach of contract case, holding that the plain language of the controlling agreement entitled Plaintiff to the retirement compensation which he claimed.Plaintiff sued Northeast Investors Trust and the trustees then in office alleging that Defendants improperly withheld his retirement compensation in violation of the parties' agreement. The district court granted partial summary judgment on Plaintiff's breach of contract claim and then entered judgment in Plaintiff's favor for the sum of $794,500. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the plain language of the controlling agreement entitled Plaintiff to the claimed compensation. View "Minturn v. Monrad" on Justia Law

Maryville College leased a building to Ruby Tuesday, which used it for corporate retreats. In financial trouble years later, Ruby Tuesday decided to sell its interest in the lease. BNA, a real estate developer, and Ruby Tuesday signed an agreement. Ruby Tuesday had previously secured a loan from Goldman Sachs that prevented Ruby Tuesday from selling its interest in the lease without Goldman’s consent. The agreement with BNA stated that Ruby Tuesday “must obtain approval from [Goldman] for the transaction.” Goldman refused to approve. Goldman later acquired the lease, after Ruby Tuesday’s bankruptcy.BNA sued Goldman under Tennessee law for intentional interference with business relations (IIBR). The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. To establish a viable IIBR claim, BNA had to adequately plead an existing business relationship with Ruby Tuesday, Goldman’s knowledge of that relationship, Goldman’s intent to cause a breach or termination of the relationship, Goldman’s improper motive or improper means, and damages from the tortious interference. BNA’s pleading did not satisfy the tort’s fourth prong: improper motive or means. The court also noted the lack of an existing business relationship between BNA and Ruby Tuesday. View "BNA Associates LLC v. Goldman Sachs Specialty Lending Group, L.P." on Justia Law

In 2018, Appellant Nationwide Affinity Insurance Company of America (Nationwide) issued a personal automobile insurance policy to Shameika Clark, Respondent Andrew Green's mother. The policy included $25,000 in UIM property damage coverage for Clark and her family members. The general definition section broadly defined "property damage" as "physical injury to, destruction of[,] or loss of use of tangible property." The UIM endorsement, however, more narrowly defined "property damage" as "injury to or destruction of 'your covered auto.'" In October 2018, Green was hit by a vehicle while walking home from school. Green pursued a claim against Nationwide for UIM bodily injury, but Nationwide refused to pay because the accident did not result in “damage to a “covered auto.” Nationwide filed this declaratory judgment action and requested a declaration that Green was not entitled to UIM property damage. The circuit court reformed Nationwide’s policy rider issued to Clark, finding that under South Carolina case law, insurers could not limit that coverage to vehicles defined in policy as “covered autos.” The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. View "Nationwide v. Green" on Justia Law

The federal district court for the District of South Carolina certified a question of law to the South Carolina Supreme Court. In 2019, USAA issued a personal automobile policy to Megan Jenkins. The policy defined "your covered auto" as any vehicle shown on the policy's declaration, any newly acquired vehicle, and any trailer owned by the insured. While riding her bicycle, Jenkins was struck and killed by an underinsured motorist. Defendant Vincent Rafferty—Jenkins' personal representative—made a claim under Jenkins' policy for UIM property damage arising from damage to the bicycle. USAA Casualty Insurance Company (USAA) denied the claim and commenced this action in federal court, asserting Jenkins' bicycle did not fall within the definition of "your covered auto." Whether USAA prevailed depended upon whether automobile insurers were required to offer UIM property damage coverage at all. If insurers were not required to offer UIM property damage coverage, they were free to restrict such coverage to an insured's "covered auto." The federal court asked the Supreme Court whether, under South Carolina Law, an auto insurer could validly limit underinsured motorist property damage coverage to property damage to vehicles defined in the policy as a “covered auto.” In their briefs and during oral argument, the parties did not directly address the question as framed by the district court. Instead, the parties briefed and argued the broader question of whether an automobile insurer's offer of underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage had to include property damage coverage. Because the answer to the broader question yielded the answer to the certified question, the Supreme Court addressed the parties’ question. USAA rightly conceded that if the Supreme Court held an insurer was required to offer UIM property damage coverage, the Court had to answer the certified question "no." The Court indeed held insurers were required to offer UIM property damage coverage, and therefore answered the certified question "no." View "USAA Casualty v. Rafferty" on Justia Law

At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, IIT, a nonprofit higher education institution, suspended all in-person instruction, moved all classes online, and restricted access to campus facilities. IIT did not refund tuition or mandatory fees to its students. Before the pandemic, IIT undergraduates were not permitted to register for an online class without special approval and were required to live on campus. Hernandez, a student who paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 semester, filed a purported class action, alleging that an express or implied contract was formed under which the university promised to provide in-person instruction, services, and resources, in exchange for tuition and compulsory fees, citing Activity Fees, Student Services Fees, Professional Co-Curricular Fees, and Studio Fees. He also raised an unjust enrichment theory, based on IIT’s retention of students’ full tuition and fees.The district court dismissed, finding that Hernandez failed to identify any specific promise to provide in-person, on-campus instruction to support a breach-of-contract claim and that Hernandez failed to state a claim for unjust enrichment. While his appeal was pending, the Seventh Circuit decided "Gociman," finding that Loyola University students adequately stated claims for breach of an implied contract under Illinois law. The Seventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of Hernandez’s case, finding no meaningful distinctions between his case and Gociman. View "Hernandez v. Illinois Institute of Technology" on Justia Law