Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs filed claims against the Ford Motor Company (FMC) for alleged defects in vehicles the company manufactured. FMC filed a motion to compel arbitration of plaintiffs’ claims based on the arbitration provision in the sale contracts. Plaintiffs opposed FMC’s motion, including on the grounds that FMC had waived its right to compel arbitration through its litigation conduct. The trial court denied FMC’s motion on its merits.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court explained that it agreed with the trial court that FMC could not compel arbitration based on Plaintiffs’ agreements with the dealers that sold them the vehicles. Equitable estoppel does not apply because, contrary to FMC’s arguments, Plaintiffs’ claims against it in no way rely on the agreements. FMC was not a third-party beneficiary of those agreements, as there is no basis to conclude Plaintiffs and their dealers entered into them with the intention of benefitting FMC. And FMC is not entitled to enforce the agreements as an undisclosed principal because there is no nexus between Plaintiffs’ claims, any alleged agency between FMC and the dealers, and the agreements. View "Ford Motor Warranty Cases" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the appellate court determining that the four exclusive commercial real estate listing agreements at issue in this case were unenforceable, holding that the appellate court decided that issue correctly.When this case was first brought to the Supreme Court, the Court held that the listing agreements did not violate state antitrust law. On remand for consideration of the remaining grounds on which Defendants had prevailed at trial, the appellate court concluded that the listening agreements incorrectly failed to specify the duration of the brokerage authorization, as required by Conn. Gen. Stat. 20-325a(b) and/or (c), thus rendering them unenforceable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the listing agreements complied with the statutory durational requirement; (2) the agreements were personal service contracts requiring the personal performance of the named broker, who died in January 2013; and (3) therefore, Defendants were not liable to Plaintiffs. View "Reserve Realty, LLC v. Windemere Reserve, LLC" on Justia Law

Pagoudis owns and is the sole member of both Sead LLC and Kearns LLC. During negotiations to purchase property from the Keidls, Pagoudis received a real estate condition report (RECR) signed by Amy Keidl. Pagoudis then signed the offer to purchase, which states that the contract is between the Keidls and Pagoudis "or assigns." Sead LLC then executed the negotiated contract and took title. Months later, Sead LLC assigned the property to Kearns LLC. After the purchase, defects were discovered that Keidl failed to disclose in the RECR, ranging from water and mildew in the basement, to insect infestations, to an unwanted piano.Pagoudis, Sead, and Kearns sued the Keidls for breach of contract, common law misrepresentation, and statutory misrepresentation. The circuit court dismissed the case, deciding that each of the parties lacked standing to pursue their stated claims; Pagoudis and Kearns were not parties to the original transaction and Sead transferred the property before filing the action and no longer has an interest in the property.The Wisconsin Supreme Court concluded that Pagoudis's and Kearns's claims against Keidl were properly dismissed. Sead's claims, however, were remanded, it was a party to the contract, received representations from the Keidls, and purchased the property. View "Pagoudis v. Keidl" on Justia Law

Direct Biologics, LLC (“DB”) brought claims for breach of covenant to not compete and misappropriation of trade secrets against Adam McQueen, DB’s former employee, and Vivex Biologics, Inc. (“Vivex”), McQueen’s new employer. After granting DB a temporary restraining order based on its trade secret claims, the district court denied DB’s application for a preliminary injunction. Finding that DB’s claims were subject to arbitration, the district court also dismissed DB’s claims against McQueen and Vivex and entered final judgment.   The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s orders denying DB’s motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissing DB’s claims and remanded. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to presume irreparable injury based on McQueen’s breach of his non-compete covenants. The court held that remand is thus proper to allow the district court to make particularized findings regarding irreparable harm; specifically, the likelihood of misuse of DB’s information and the difficulty of quantifying damages should such misuse occur. View "Direct Biologics v. McQueen" on Justia Law

In 2014, Merck and Bayer entered a Stock and Asset Purchase Agreement (SAPA) whereby Merck sold, and Bayer purchased, Merck’s consumer care business and consumer care product lines, including the Claritin, Coppertone, Dr. Scholl’s, and Lotrimin foot powder product lines. The transaction closed in October 2014. Bayer paid Merck more than $14 billion. After the transaction closed, both companies were the subject of lawsuits alleging injuries arising from consumers’ use of talc-based products that Merck used in foot powder product lines sold to Bayer; asbestos allegedly contained in talcum powder has caused fatal cancers.The Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed Merck’s suit in which it argued that Bayer breached the SAPA by refusing to assume liability for the claims. Both companies, as sophisticated participants in the pharmaceutical industry, understood that consumer products businesses face potential liability for torts associated with the sale of such consumer products. The SAPA clearly and unambiguously provides that Merck indefinitely retained substantive liability for the product liability claims related to products sold before the transaction closed. Merck attempted to argue that its liability for the product liability claims ceased in 2021; the court found that interpretation contrary to the SAPA's clear and unambiguous terms. Bayer’s interpretation of the SAPA is the only reasonable one. View "Merck & Co., Inc. v. Bayer AG" on Justia Law

Defendant and his spouse maintained a car insurance policy (the “Policy”) with State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. While the Policy was in force, Defendant’s wife was involved in an accident in which she was struck and injured by an uninsured driver of an electric motorized scooter. Defendants made a claim for her injuries under the Policy’s Uninsured Motor Vehicle (“UM”) coverage. State Farm denied the claim on the ground that under the Policy, the scooter was neither a “motor vehicle” nor an “uninsured motor vehicle,” which the Policy defined as a “land motor vehicle.” State Farm sued Defendants, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Policy provided no coverage. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court denied Defendant’s motion, granting summary judgment in part to State Farm.   Defendants argued that because the Policy defines “uninsured motor vehicle” as a “land motor vehicle,” the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “land motor vehicle” dictates the scope of the Policy, and under the plain and ordinary meaning of the term, the scooter is a covered uninsured motor vehicle. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to State Farm. The court concluded that the Policy defines “uninsured motor vehicle” more broadly than Florida insurance law requires. Because an insurer can provide more UM coverage than the law requires, we decline to disregard the Policy’s broader definition of uninsured motor vehicle in favor of a more limited statutory definition of motor vehicle. View "State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anna Bevilacqua Spangler, et al." on Justia Law

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