Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court entering summary judgment in favor of Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. and against Roynetta McDavid in this lawsuit alleging that McDavid breached the idemnification provision of the parties' rental agreement, holding that the district court erred in denying summary judgment to McDavid.In Nebraska, McDavid rented a car from Avis to take a trip with her family. When the traveling party reached Tennessee, McDavid's sister, despite an admonition to the contrary, drove the car and was involved in an accident with another vehicle. Three passengers in the other vehicle were injured in the collision and filed suit against McDavid's sister. Avis paid the injured parties $40,100, and when McDavid did not reimburse Avis, Avis brought suit, alleging that McDavid breached the rental agreement's indemnification provision. The district court granted summary judgment for Avis. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Avis failed to demonstrate a right to indemnity under the rental agreement, and therefore, the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Avis. View "Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. v. McDavid" on Justia Law

Medical Protective Company (“MedPro”) issued Professional Liability policies to Dr. Bradley DeWall and Wound Management Consultants, P.C. (collectively, “WMC”). Coverage Paragraph A insured WMC against “claim[s] for damages . . . based on professional services rendered or which should have been rendered . . . by the insured . . . in the practice of the insured’s profession.” In this coverage action, the parties dispute whether Paragraph A covers a third party’s claim to recover Medicare reimbursements it had to repay because of deficiencies in WMC’s documentation of the professional services it provided. Applying Iowa law, the district court1 ruled, consistent with other courts that have considered the issue, that the third party’s “Medicare recoupment” claim is not “based upon professional services” and, therefore coverage is limited to the $50,000 of defense costs provided in the policies’ separate Medicare Endorsement. WMC appealed this summary judgment ruling, raising numerous issues.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that MedPro had no duty to defend WMC from Genesis’s Medicare recoupment claim under the policies’ Paragraph A coverage. The court also agreed with the district court that there is no duty to defend the other claims Genesis asserted in its arbitration complaint because those claims are not “based upon professional services rendered . . . in the practice of [WMC’s] profession.” View "Bradley DeWall v. Medical Protective Company" on Justia Law

Homeowner Trefan Archibald hired an individual, Gina Dobson, to refinish his hardwood floors. Dobson worked as a longshoreman full-time but did some construction work on the side. Archibald selected her for the job based on a referral and her reputation of completing similar construction projects. Upon completion of the floors, Archibald was dissatisfied with the results and refused to pay the agreed-upon price. Dobson sued for breach of contract and, as part of the suit, claimed she was not a contractor and did not need to be registered. The issue this case presented for the Washington Supreme Court’s review was: (1) whether such an individual was a “contractor” under RCW 18.27.010(1)(a); and (2) whether nonregistration under RCW 18.27.080 was an affirmative defense that had to be timely pleaded or was otherwise waived. The Court of Appeals held that Dobson was a contractor within the meaning of the contractor registration statutes and that Archibald was not required to raise nonregistration as an affirmative defense. To this, the Supreme Court agreed, holding that Dobson was a contractor as defined by statute and that registration was a prerequisite to suit. Therefore, Dobson was precluded from bringing this lawsuit, and her breach of contract action was properly dismissed. View "Dobson v. Archibald" on Justia Law

Under the terms of a consulting agreement between GSE Consulting, Inc. (“GSE”) and Harris Corporation (“Harris”), GSE is entitled to a payment of up to four million dollars in the event that certain intellectual property owned by Harris is “sold, merged or transferred” but did not form “the primary basis of the sale.” GSE contends that the relevant intellectual property, held by a subsidiary of one of Harris’s subsidiaries, necessarily “merged” when Harris used a different subsidiary to effectuate a comprehensive reverse triangular merger with an outside company and thus triggered Harris’s payment obligation under the parties’ agreement. L3Harris, however, maintained that Harris’s participation in the reverse triangular merger did not cause the relevant intellectual property to “merge” and has accordingly refused to make the demanded payment. The district court agreed with L3Harris and dismissed GSE’s breach of contract claim on summary judgment.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court reasoned that the reverse triangular merger at issue did not “merge,” i.e., combine, the relevant intellectual property in any ordinary way. The Plan contains assurances regarding the validity, right to continued use, and maintenance of each party’s intellectual property. And, given its broad definitions of “Company Intellectual Property” and “Intellectual Property,” the Plan certainly reaches the intellectual property held by Eagle as subsidiary of one of Harris’s subsidiaries. The Plan neither blends, pools, nor otherwise combines the intellectual property held by Eagle with any other intellectual property. Therefore, the intellectual property discussed in the Consulting Agreement was not “merged” as a result of the reverse triangular merger. View "GSE Consulting, Inc. v. L3Harris Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law

In this appeal, the issue presented was whether a contract for the sale of business assets also contained language conveying an enforceable leasehold interest in real property in favor of the buyer. At summary judgment, the district court determined that the Ellis Family Trust owned the real property underlying this leasehold dispute, and that the contract selling the assets of Pullover Prints Corporation (“PPC”) to 616, Inc. (“616”) did not convey a leasehold interest to 616 because material terms necessary to form a valid and enforceable lease were missing. Instead, the district court concluded that the contract involving the sale of assets only contained an “agreement to agree” on the terms of a written lease at a later date. Accordingly, the district court entered judgment in favor of the Ellis Family Trust. 616 appealed, arguing that all material terms necessary to form a valid and enforceable lease could be found within the asset contract. Respondents PPC, Mae Properties, LLC (“Mae”), and Ellis in his individual capacity and in his capacity as trustee for the Ellis Family Trust, cross-appealed the district court’s decision regarding their collective motion for attorney fees. Finding no reversible error in either the appeal or cross-appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. View "616 Inc. v. Mae Properties, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Ghidorzi Construction Company, LLC and dismissing the complaint brought by Primrose Retirement Communities, LLC and Gillette Retirement, LLC its local affiliate (together, Primrose), holding that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on Primrose's breach of contract claim.Primrose filed a complaint against Ghidorzi alleging negligence, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Ghidorzi following a hearing. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) there were material questions of fact precluding summary judgment on the interpretation of the contract and whether Ghidorzi's actions contributed to Primrose's damages; and (2) the district court properly concluded that the contract language obviated any need to impose an implied covenant. View "Primrose Retirement Communities, LLC v. Ghidorzi Construction Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of Insurer in this action brought to determine whether business losses suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic were covered by the relevant policies, holding that Insured's losses were not covered by the two insurance policies at issue.Before the pandemic, Insurer sold two insurance policies to Insured. Insurer later initiated this action seeking a judgment declaring that Insured's business losses incurred during the COVID-19 pandemic were not covered under the policies. The trial court concluded that there was no coverage under either policy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly entered summary judgment for Insurer because Insured's losses plainly and unambiguously were not covered by either policy. View "Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Moda, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in this dispute over whether a property insurance policy providing coverage for "direct physical loss of or physical damage to" covered property provided coverage for business income losses arising from the suspension of business operations during the COVID-19 pandemic, holding that the trial court correctly granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment.Plaintiffs, who suspended their business operations during the COVID-19 pandemic and consequently lost business income and incurred other expenses, filed claims for losses with Defendants. After Defendants denied the claims Plaintiffs brought this actin seeking a judgment declaring that the relevant insurance policies covered their economic losses under the circumstances. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Plaintiffs did not suffer any "direct physical loss" of covered property, there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the policies did not cover Plaintiffs' claims. View "Connecticut Dermatology Group, PC v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co." on Justia Law

This case involved promises made and broken to homeowners by a developer and its affiliated entities. A jury returned verdicts on several causes of action in favor of the homeowners, and the developer appealed. The court of appeals initially upheld the jury's verdict for $1.75 million on the homeowners' breach of fiduciary claim and a verdict for $10,000 on a breach of contract claim by an individual homeowner. Thereafter, upon petitions for rehearing, the court of appeals completely reversed course, dismissing all of the homeowners' claims as a matter of law and reversing and remanding the breach of contract claim by the individual homeowner. The South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed in part and reversed in part, thus reinstating the jury's verdicts. The Court: (1) reversed the court of appeals' ruling on the statute of limitations because the issue as to when Homeowners had adequate notice to begin the limitations clock was properly presented to the jury and resolved by it; (2) found any procedural issues related to the derivative claims either (a) moot as the HOA was realigned as a plaintiff and the trial court explicitly found it adopted its own claims against the Developers, or (b) demand was saved by futility due to the Developer's continuing veto power; (3) held that Developers breached the fiduciary duties owed to Homeowners; (4) reversed the court of appeals' decision that Developers could not be amalgamated, as there was more than enough evidence of bad faith, abuse, fraud, wrongdoing, or injustice resulting from the blurring of the entities' legal distinctions; and (5) affirmed the court of appeals that the recreational easement was invalid. View "Walbeck, et al. v. The I'On Company" on Justia Law

Life Insurance Company of North America (“LINA”) made multiple determinations that Plaintiff did not qualify for disability benefits under her long-term disability insurance policy and her life insurance policy. Plaintiff sued LINA for breach of contract and bad-faith failure to provide insurance benefits. The district court granted summary judgment for LINA on Plaintiff’s bad-faith claim based on the multiple medical opinions that supported LINA’s determinations. The district court held that, under Alabama law, Plaintiff could not recover mental anguish damages for her breach of contract claim and excluded evidence of such damages. Finally, following a jury verdict in Plaintiff’s favor on the breach of contract claim related to the long-term disability insurance policy, the district court determined that Plaintiff was entitled to simple pre-judgment interest at a rate of 1.5 percent under the policy and simple post-judgment interest at a rate of 0.08 percent pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1961. In determining that the long-term disability insurance policy provided for simple rather than compound interest, the district court struck a document produced by Plaintiff because it was not properly authenticated. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the district court erred at each of these steps.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that the evidence establishes that LINA had an arguable reason for determining that Plaintiff did not qualify for disability benefits under the disability policy. Further, the court wrote that the Supreme Court of Alabama has made clear that mental anguish damages are unavailable for breach of contract claims related to long-term disability insurance policies. View "Cherri Walker v. Life Insurance Company of North America" on Justia Law