Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Lauren Woods was injured in a car accident involving an underinsured motorist and sought benefits from her insurer, Progressive American Insurance Company, under her policy’s underinsured motorist provision. Progressive declined to pay the full policy limit. Woods then sued Progressive for breach of contract and statutory bad faith under Florida law, alleging that Progressive failed to settle her claim in good faith. After serving civil remedy notices, Woods’s case was removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida first held a jury trial on Woods’s underinsured motorist claim, resulting in a verdict and final judgment in her favor that exceeded the policy limit. Woods then proceeded with her statutory bad faith claim before the same court. Prior to the bad faith trial, the parties stipulated to certain facts, including the existence and amount of the prior verdict and judgment. They also agreed that the magistrate judge would determine damages, and the jury would decide only liability. At the start of the bad faith trial, Woods limited her theory to Progressive’s conduct before the underinsured motorist trial, and the court excluded evidence and instructions regarding the prior verdict and excess judgment. The jury found for Progressive on the bad faith claim, and the court denied Woods’s motion for a new trial.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the prior verdict and excess judgment from the bad faith trial. The court found that, given Woods’s stipulation limiting the scope of her claim and the parties’ agreement that damages would be determined by the judge, the excluded evidence was irrelevant to the jury’s determination of liability. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of Progressive. View "Woods v. Progressive American Insurance Company" on Justia Law

This case involves a class action dispute over late payments of oil proceeds to royalty and working interest owners in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, an Oklahoma landowner with royalty interests in three oil wells, alleged that Sunoco, Inc. and Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals, L.P. failed to pay statutory interest on late payments as required by Oklahoma’s Production Revenue Standards Act (PRSA). The PRSA mandates that first purchasers of oil must pay proceeds within strict timeframes and include 12 percent interest on any late payments. The class was defined to include all owners who received late payments from Sunoco without the required interest.After Sunoco removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, the court certified the class in 2019, finding common questions predominated, including whether Sunoco owed interest on untimely payments and whether a demand was required. The district court granted partial summary judgment on liability for the PRSA claim, and after a bench trial, awarded the class over $103 million in actual damages (including prejudgment interest) and $75 million in punitive damages. Sunoco appealed, challenging class certification, standing for certain class members, the calculation of prejudgment interest, and the punitive damages award. The Tenth Circuit previously remanded for clarification on damages allocation for unidentified owners, which the district court addressed.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings on class certification, ascertainability, standing, and the award of actual damages including prejudgment interest. The court held that the PRSA requires automatic payment of statutory interest on late payments, and that prejudgment interest should be compounded until paid. However, the Tenth Circuit vacated the punitive damages award, holding that punitive damages are not available for breach of contract claims under Oklahoma law when the only claim proven was a PRSA violation. The case was remanded for amendment of the judgment consistent with this opinion. View "Cline v. Sunoco" on Justia Law

A commuter airline that had provided federally subsidized air service to a small community in West Virginia for several years sought to continue serving that community under the Essential Air Service (EAS) program. In 2024, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) solicited bids for a new three-year EAS contract. Four airlines, including the incumbent, submitted proposals. The DOT evaluated the applications based on five statutory factors: reliability, agreements with larger carriers, community preferences, marketing plans, and total compensation requested. After reviewing the proposals and soliciting input from the local community, which favored a different airline, the DOT selected a new carrier that offered larger aircraft, a codeshare agreement with a major airline, and a subsidy request within the competitive range.The incumbent airline challenged the DOT’s selection in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, arguing that the agency’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, and exceeded its statutory authority. The petitioner contended that the DOT failed to meaningfully analyze the statutory factors and improperly chose a more expensive proposal.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review the DOT’s order under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). On the merits, the court found that the DOT’s findings regarding each statutory factor were supported by substantial evidence and that the agency’s reasoning was adequately explained. The court concluded that the DOT’s selection process was reasonable, not arbitrary or capricious, and that the agency did not exceed its statutory authority. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and upheld the DOT’s selection of the new EAS carrier. View "Southern Airways Express, LLC v. DOT" on Justia Law

A Maryland real estate investment trust with over 12,000 shareholders entered into an advisory agreement with UMTH General Services, L.P. and its affiliates to manage the trust’s investments and operations. The agreement stated that the advisor was in a fiduciary relationship with the trust and its shareholders, but individual shareholders were not parties to the agreement. After allegations of mismanagement and improper advancement of legal fees surfaced, a shareholder, Nexpoint Diversified Real Estate Trust, sued derivatively in Maryland. The Maryland court dismissed the claims for lack of standing and subject matter jurisdiction. Nexpoint then transferred its shares to a subsidiary, which, along with Nexpoint, sued the advisors directly in Texas, alleging corporate waste and mismanagement, and claimed the advisory agreement created a duty to individual shareholders.In the 191st District Court of Dallas County, the advisors filed a plea to the jurisdiction, a verified plea in abatement, and special exceptions, arguing that the claims were derivative and belonged to the trust, so the shareholders lacked standing and capacity to sue directly. The trial court denied these motions. The advisors sought mandamus relief from the Fifth Court of Appeals, which was denied, and then petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas.The Supreme Court of Texas held that while the shareholders alleged a financial injury sufficient for constitutional standing, they lacked the capacity to sue individually because the advisory agreement did not create a duty to individual shareholders, nor did it confer third-party beneficiary status. The agreement benefited shareholders collectively through the trust, not individually. The court conditionally granted mandamus relief, directing the trial court to vacate its order and dismiss the case with prejudice, holding that shareholders must pursue such claims derivatively and in the proper forum as specified by the trust’s governing documents. View "IN RE UMTH GENERAL SERVICES, L.P." on Justia Law

Sanchez Energy Corporation, a gas producer, underwent Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2019 due to significant debt, with its reorganization plan confirmed in April 2020. The company, later renamed Mesquite Energy, Inc., owned valuable fossil fuel reserves in the Comanche Field, Texas, and had several high-cost contracts for gathering, processing, transporting, and marketing natural gas and natural gas liquids. Carnero G&P, L.L.C., a midstream services provider, had a contract with Sanchez to serve as a backup provider. After Sanchez’s reorganization, Mesquite entered into new agreements with other parties to lower its midstream costs, which Carnero claimed breached its surviving contract.Following the bankruptcy, Carnero filed a state court lawsuit against Mesquite and other parties, asserting state law claims based on the new agreements. The suit was removed to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, which denied Carnero’s request to remand and ultimately dismissed the case on the pleadings, finding it had “related-to” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334. The bankruptcy court reasoned that the dispute pertained to the implementation of the reorganization plan and that Carnero was barred from challenging the new agreements due to its failure to object during the bankruptcy proceedings. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the jurisdictional question de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that the bankruptcy court lacked post-confirmation “related-to” jurisdiction over Carnero’s state law contract claims, as the dispute did not pertain to the implementation or execution of the reorganization plan. The court found that the new agreements were not executory contracts under the plan and that Carnero was not barred from pursuing its claims. The Fifth Circuit reversed the lower courts’ judgments and remanded the case with instructions to remand to state court. View "Carnero G&P v. SN EF Maverick" on Justia Law

RTI, LLC and RTI Holdings, LLC sought to construct a specialized clinical research facility in Brookings, South Dakota, designed for animal health research trials with stringent air filtration and ventilation requirements. Acting as the general contractor, RTI hired designArc Group, Inc. as architect and several contractors, including Pro Engineering, Inc., Ekern Home Equipment Company, FM Acoustical Tile, Inc., and Trane U.S. Inc., to design and build the facility. After completion in April 2016, RTI experienced significant issues with air pressure, ventilation, and ceiling integrity, leading to contamination problems that disrupted research and resulted in financial losses.The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Brookings County, reviewed RTI’s claims for breach of contract and breach of implied warranties against the architect and contractors. All defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that RTI’s claims were based on professional negligence and required expert testimony, which RTI failed to provide. The circuit court agreed, finding RTI’s CEO unqualified as an expert, and granted summary judgment to all defendants. The court also denied RTI’s motion to amend its complaint to add negligence claims, deeming the amendment untimely and futile due to the lack of expert testimony.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the summary judgment for designArc, Pro Engineering, and FM Acoustical, holding that expert testimony was required for claims involving specialized design and construction issues, and that RTI’s CEO was not qualified to provide such testimony. However, the court reversed the summary judgment for Trane and Ekern, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding Trane’s alleged faulty installation and Ekern’s potential vicarious liability. The court also reversed the denial of RTI’s motion to amend the complaint, concluding the proposed amendments were not futile and would not prejudice Trane or Ekern. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "RTI, LLC v. Pro Engineering" on Justia Law

A company developed a specialized vehicle-mounted stairway, with design work primarily performed by the founder’s son, who was promised equity in the business but never received it due to the majority owner’s repeated refusals. The son, with his father’s assistance, eventually obtained a patent for the design, which he used as leverage to seek compensation. Negotiations between the parties failed, leading to the father’s removal as company president and the company filing suit against both the father and son. The company alleged breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets, business conspiracy, unjust enrichment, fraud, and breach of contract, while the son counterclaimed for patent infringement.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment to the father and son on all claims except a breach of contract claim against the father and the son’s patent counterclaim. The court found most claims time-barred or unsupported by evidence, and later, the company voluntarily dismissed its remaining claim. The son’s patent was invalidated by a jury. The district court also awarded attorneys’ fees and costs to the father as the prevailing party under the company’s operating agreement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s rulings. The appellate court held that the company’s claims were either time-barred under the applicable statutes of limitations or failed on the merits, as there was no evidence the son benefited from the patent or that he had signed a non-disclosure agreement. The court also affirmed the award of attorneys’ fees and costs to the father, finding no error in the district court’s application of Delaware law or its determination of the prevailing party. View "Mission Integrated Technologies, LLC v. Clemente" on Justia Law

A marketing and e-commerce company based in Nevada provided services for the Kanye 2020 presidential campaign at the request of a group of Arizona-based political consultants (the Lincoln defendants). The company began work without a written contract, relying on assurances that terms would be formalized later. It created campaign materials, built a website, and managed digital operations, but was never paid for its work. The company sued Kanye 2020 and the Lincoln defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.The District of Wyoming found it lacked personal jurisdiction over the Lincoln defendants and transferred those claims to the District of Arizona under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, citing concerns about potential statute of limitations issues. The court dismissed the claims against Kanye 2020 for failure to state a claim, but did so without prejudice. Kanye 2020 moved for reconsideration, seeking dismissal with prejudice, but the Wyoming court declined, stating it no longer had jurisdiction after the transfer.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the interlocutory transfer order. The court affirmed the dismissal of the contract claims against Kanye 2020, finding the complaint failed to plausibly allege the existence of an oral or implied contract or unjust enrichment, as there were insufficient communications or notice to Kanye 2020 regarding payment expectations. However, the Tenth Circuit held that the district court erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction to consider Kanye 2020’s motion for reconsideration. The case was remanded for the district court to determine whether the dismissal of the claims against Kanye 2020 should be with prejudice. View "SeedX v. Lincoln Strategy" on Justia Law

After purchasing a home with wooded acreage in Santa Cruz, the buyers discovered issues they believed the sellers had failed to disclose, including matters related to the septic system, property condition, and logging operations. The real estate transaction was governed by a standard form agreement that required the parties to attempt mediation before resorting to litigation or arbitration, and provided that the prevailing party in any dispute would be entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees, except as limited by the mediation provision.Following the sale, the buyers sued the sellers for breach of contract and fraud. The sellers filed a cross-complaint. After a three-day bench trial in the Santa Cruz County Superior Court, the court found in favor of the sellers on all claims and on their cross-complaint, determining that the sellers were the prevailing parties and entitled to recover attorney fees and costs, with the amount to be determined in post-trial proceedings. The sellers then moved for attorney fees and costs. The trial court denied the motion for attorney fees, concluding that the sellers’ initial refusal to mediate the dispute, as required by the contract, barred them from recovering attorney fees, even though they later expressed willingness to mediate before the buyers filed suit. The court also denied the motion for costs without prejudice due to procedural deficiencies.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, held that the trial court’s initial statement regarding entitlement to attorney fees was interlocutory and not a final judgment on the issue. The appellate court further held that the sellers’ initial refusal to mediate did not automatically preclude them from recovering attorney fees if they later agreed to mediate before litigation commenced. The court reversed the postjudgment order denying attorney fees and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the sellers effectively retracted their refusal to mediate before the lawsuit was filed. The denial of costs was affirmed due to the sellers’ failure to file a proper costs memorandum. View "Evleshin v. Meyer" on Justia Law

A commercial real estate broker and consultant partnered with three brothers who owned an architecture and construction company to develop and lease a commercial property. They planned to form a limited liability company (LLC) as equal members, contributing professional services and cash, but did not formalize their agreement in writing. After a dispute arose over a broker commission, the brothers executed a backdated operating agreement that excluded the broker from LLC membership. The broker alleged he was unfairly cut out of the deal and sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.The Marshall Circuit Court granted summary judgment to the brothers on the contract claim, finding that Indiana law required written confirmation for LLC membership, which the broker lacked. The court also denied the broker’s request for a jury trial on the unjust enrichment claim, holding that both the claim and the defense of unclean hands were equitable issues for the judge. After a bench trial, the court ruled against the broker on unjust enrichment, finding he failed to prove his claim and that unclean hands barred recovery.On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding that initial LLC membership could be established by oral agreement and that unjust enrichment claims for money damages were legal claims entitled to a jury trial. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, vacating the appellate decision.The Indiana Supreme Court held that LLC membership under the Business Flexibility Act requires either a written operating agreement or written confirmation, and the broker was not a member as a matter of law. However, genuine factual disputes remained regarding whether the brothers breached an agreement to make him a member, precluding summary judgment. The Court also held that unjust enrichment claims for money damages are legal claims subject to a jury trial, and the unclean hands doctrine may be asserted as a defense. The judgment was vacated and the case remanded for a jury trial on both claims. View "Andrew Nemeth Properties, LLC v. Panzica" on Justia Law