Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Craig Reichel, a businessperson from Rochester, Minnesota, and his companies, including Reichel Foods, Inc., filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against the law firm Wendland Utz, LTD, and its former lawyer, Jerrie Hayes. Reichel alleged that despite an ultimately favorable outcome in prior litigation, the law firm’s negligence caused him to incur substantial attorney fees and costs. The underlying litigation involved a lawsuit filed by Craig’s brother, Bryan Reichel, claiming an equity interest in one of Craig’s companies. The district court issued several adverse rulings against Craig and his companies, leading to significant legal expenses. Eventually, the bankruptcy court confirmed Craig’s sole ownership of the companies, and the district court granted summary judgment in Craig’s favor.The Olmsted County District Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Wendland Utz, dismissing Reichel Foods’ professional negligence claim on the grounds that Reichel Foods could not demonstrate that, but for the law firm’s conduct, it would have been successful in the underlying litigation. The district court did not address Reichel Foods’ other claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, nor did it resolve the claims brought by Craig Reichel and his other companies.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to decide claims still pending in the district court. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ rulings on those claims. Regarding the professional negligence claim of Reichel Foods, the Supreme Court held that a successful outcome in the underlying litigation does not categorically bar a legal malpractice claim. The court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming summary judgment on Reichel Foods’ professional negligence claim and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Reichel vs. Wendland Utz, LTD" on Justia Law

In March 2013, Woodsboro Farmers Cooperative contracted with E.F. Erwin, Inc. to construct two grain silos. Erwin subcontracted AJ Constructors, Inc. (AJC) for the assembly. AJC completed its work by July 2013, and Erwin finished the project in November 2013. However, Woodsboro noticed defects causing leaks and signed an addendum with Erwin for repairs. Erwin's attempts to fix the silos failed, leading Woodsboro to hire Pitcock Supply, Inc. for repairs. Pitcock found numerous faults attributed to AJC's poor workmanship, necessitating complete deconstruction and reconstruction of the silos, costing Woodsboro $805,642.74.Woodsboro sued Erwin in Texas state court for breach of contract, and the case went to arbitration in 2017. The arbitration panel found AJC's construction was negligent, resulting in defective silos, and awarded Woodsboro $988,073.25 in damages. The Texas state court confirmed the award in September 2022. In December 2018, TIG Insurance Company, Erwin's insurer, sought declaratory relief in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, questioning its duty to defend and indemnify Erwin. The district court granted TIG's motion for summary judgment on the duty to defend, finding no "property damage" under the policy, and later ruled there was no duty to indemnify, as the damage was due to defective construction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that there were factual questions regarding whether the damage constituted "property damage" under the insurance policy, as the silos' metal parts were damaged by wind and weather due to AJC's poor workmanship. The court determined that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for TIG and concluded that additional factual development was needed. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "TIG Insurance Company v. Woodsboro Farmers Coop" on Justia Law

In 2007, Dennis Collins, Suzanne Collins, David Butler, and Lucia Bott purchased long-term care insurance policies from Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife). They also bought an Inflation Protection Rider, which promised automatic annual benefit increases without corresponding premium hikes, though MetLife reserved the right to adjust premiums on a class basis. In 2015, 2018, and 2019, MetLife informed the plaintiffs of significant premium increases. The plaintiffs filed a class action in 2022, alleging fraud, fraudulent concealment, violations of state consumer protection statutes, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Illinois and Missouri law.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed the case, ruling that the filed rate doctrine under Missouri and Illinois law barred the plaintiffs' claims. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiffs bringing claims under Missouri law failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the filed rate doctrine did not apply, they were not required to exhaust administrative remedies, and their complaint adequately alleged a breach of the implied covenant.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court found that MetLife's statements about premium expectations were not materially false and that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege intentional fraud or fraudulent concealment. The court also concluded that the statutory claims under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act were barred by regulatory exemptions. Lastly, the court determined that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was not breached, as MetLife's actions were expressly permitted by the policy terms. View "Collins v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In this case, Universal Development Corporation ("Universal"), Hatti Group RE, LLC ("Hatti Group"), and Harsha Hatti separately appealed judgments entered by the Jefferson Circuit Court in favor of Robbie Dellinger following a jury trial. The trial involved consolidated cases with claims asserted by Hatti, the Hatti Group, and Dellinger.The Jefferson Circuit Court had previously dismissed Universal from Dellinger's initial action against Hatti and the Hatti Group. However, Universal was later brought back into the litigation when Hatti and the Hatti Group filed a separate action against Dellinger, Universal, and others. The cases were consolidated, and Dellinger asserted a breach-of-contract cross-claim against Universal. The jury found in favor of Dellinger on his claims against Universal and Hatti, awarding him compensatory and punitive damages.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the appeals. It dismissed the appeals of Hatti Group and Hatti, noting that Hatti's appeal in Hatti v. Universal was invalid because no adverse judgment was entered against Hatti in that case. Hatti's appeal in Dellinger v. Hatti was dismissed as untimely because it was filed more than 42 days after the final judgment.Regarding Universal's appeal, the court reversed the judgment against Universal and rendered a judgment in its favor. The court held that Dellinger's breach-of-contract claim against Universal was void because it was based on work performed without a general contractor's license, violating Alabama's licensure statutes. The court concluded that Dellinger acted as a general contractor under the Personal Services Agreement with Hatti, and since Dellinger was unlicensed, the contract was void as a matter of public policy. Consequently, Universal had no legal obligation to support Dellinger in seeking payments under an unenforceable contract. View "Universal Development Corporation v. Dellinger" on Justia Law

A swine producer experienced a disease outbreak in its sow facility and sued two manure management companies, alleging the outbreak was caused by their failure to follow biosecurity protocols. The swine producer sought $1.5 million in damages under breach of contract and negligence theories. The claims against one company were dismissed, and the remaining company, Frost, moved for summary judgment on both theories.The district court for Burt County granted summary judgment in favor of Frost, finding no contractual relationship between Frost and the swine producer and concluding that Frost owed no duty to the producer. The swine producer appealed, and Frost cross-appealed on the issue of causation.The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment on the breach of contract claim but reversed on the negligence claim, finding that Frost owed a duty of reasonable care. The court noted that the standard of care and whether Frost breached it were factual questions for the jury. However, it declined to address Frost’s cross-appeal on causation, as the district court had not ruled on that issue.On further review, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court agreed with the district court that Frost was entitled to summary judgment on the negligence claims. It found no evidence of an industry standard prohibiting manure pumpers from pumping at a sow facility after a hog finishing facility and concluded that Frost did not breach the standard of care by failing to inform the producer of his previous pumping location. The case was remanded with directions to affirm the grant of summary judgment. View "Ronnfeldt Farms v. Arp" on Justia Law

Hi-Tech Aggregate, LLC supplied Pavestone, LLC with aggregate used to manufacture pavers. After customers complained about efflorescence on the pavers, Pavestone determined that sodium carbonate in Hi-Tech’s aggregate caused the issue. Pavestone sued Hi-Tech for negligence, products liability, breach of contract, and breach of warranty. The district court ruled in favor of Pavestone on the breach of warranty and products liability claims.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County conducted a bench trial and found that Hi-Tech breached the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and was liable under products liability. Hi-Tech appealed the decision, arguing that it did not know of Pavestone’s specific need for sodium-free aggregate and that the economic loss doctrine barred Pavestone’s tort claims.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case. It held that Hi-Tech’s sale of aggregate carried an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose because Hi-Tech had reason to know Pavestone’s intended use. The court adopted the reasoning of UCC § 2-315, which does not require proof of a seller’s actual knowledge if the seller had reason to know the product’s intended purpose. The court also held that Pavestone was excused from testing the aggregate for sodium carbonate because the defect was latent and not detectable through a simple examination.However, the court reversed the district court’s ruling on the products liability claim, holding that the economic loss doctrine precluded Pavestone’s noncontractual claims. The doctrine applies when the damage is to the product itself and not to other property. Pavestone did not provide sufficient evidence of damage to property other than the pavers. Thus, the Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court’s judgment on the warranty claim but reversed its judgment on the products liability claims. View "Hi-Tech Aggregate, LLC v. Pavestone, LLC" on Justia Law

Zurich American Insurance Company issued a builder’s risk insurance policy for the construction of an academic building for City Colleges of Chicago. Infrastructure Engineering, Inc. (IEI), a subcontractor, designed a rainwater collection system for the project. During construction, a rainstorm caused significant flooding and damage to the building. Zurich paid the claim to CMO, the general contractor, and then sued IEI for breach of contract, alleging that IEI’s design caused the damage.The Cook County circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of IEI, agreeing with IEI’s argument that Zurich was not entitled to subrogation because the payment was made to CMO, not City Colleges, and CMO repaired the damage. Zurich appealed, and the appellate court reversed the circuit court’s decision, holding that Zurich was entitled to subrogation under the policy’s provisions, which allowed Zurich to step into City Colleges’ shoes.The Supreme Court of Illinois reviewed the case and affirmed the appellate court’s judgment. The court held that City Colleges, as the owner of the damaged property, had an insurable interest and sustained a loss when the building was damaged. The court found that Zurich, having paid for the repairs through CMO, was entitled to subrogation rights under the clear terms of the builder’s risk policy. The court rejected IEI’s argument that City Colleges did not sustain a loss or receive payment, emphasizing that CMO acted as City Colleges’ agent in handling the claim and repairs. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Infrastructure Engineering, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, two law firms, provided legal services to defendants regarding the estate of Daniel P. O’Brien Sr. and Mary D. O’Brien. The attorney-client agreement stipulated a contingency fee structure, but defendants terminated the agreement without cause after 19 months. Plaintiffs sought compensation for their services based on quantum meruit, claiming their efforts significantly contributed to a favorable settlement for defendants.The Cook County Circuit Court found that plaintiffs had proven the elements of a quantum meruit claim, including the benefit conferred upon defendants. The court determined the reasonable value of plaintiffs’ services using the contingency fee structure from the attorney-client agreement, awarding plaintiffs $1,692,390.60 after deducting fees paid to subsequent attorneys.The Appellate Court affirmed the entitlement to quantum meruit recovery but reversed the amount awarded, ruling that the attorney-client agreement was void due to a violation of Rule 1.5(e) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, which requires a written fee-splitting agreement and client consent. The appellate court remanded the case for a new determination of the reasonable value of services.The Illinois Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed that plaintiffs were entitled to quantum meruit recovery. However, it found that the appellate court erred in reversing the circuit court’s judgment on the reasonable value of services. The Supreme Court held that the attorney-client agreement was not void ab initio and that the circuit court did not commit reversible error in using the contingency fee structure as evidence of value. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment, awarding plaintiffs $1,692,390.60. View "Andrew W. Levenfeld & Associates, Ltd. v. O'Brien" on Justia Law

Occidental Petroleum Corporation acquired Anadarko Petroleum Corporation in 2019, resulting in a trust holding a significant amount of Occidental stock. Wells Fargo, acting as trustee, agreed via email to sell the stock between January 6 and January 10, 2020. However, Wells Fargo failed to execute the sale until March 2020, by which time the stock's value had significantly decreased, causing a loss of over $30 million. Occidental sued Wells Fargo for breach of contract based on the email chain and the Trust Agreement.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of Occidental, finding that Wells Fargo breached the Trust Agreement by failing to sell the stock as planned. The court also dismissed Wells Fargo’s counterclaim and affirmative defenses and awarded damages and attorney’s fees to Occidental.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the 2019 email chain did not constitute a contract due to lack of consideration. However, Wells Fargo was judicially estopped from arguing that the Trust Agreement was not a contract, as it had previously asserted that the relationship was contractual to dismiss Occidental’s fiduciary-duty claim. The court affirmed that Wells Fargo breached the Trust Agreement by failing to prudently manage the Trust’s assets.The Fifth Circuit also upheld the district court’s calculation of damages, rejecting Wells Fargo’s argument that reinvestment should have been considered. The court found that reinvestment was speculative and unsupported by the record. Additionally, the court affirmed the dismissal of Wells Fargo’s counterclaim and affirmative defenses, as Wells Fargo failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact. Finally, the court upheld the award of attorney’s fees, finding no basis for segregating fees based on Wells Fargo’s different capacities. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "Occidental Petroleum v. Wells Fargo" on Justia Law

In this case, a primary insurer, Westport Insurance Corporation, and an excess insurer, Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, disputed liability for a judgment against their mutual insured, Insurance Alliance (IA). IA was sued by Lake Texoma Highport LLC for failing to procure requested insurance coverage, resulting in significant property damage. IA had a primary insurance policy with Westport and an excess policy with Penn National. Westport controlled the defense and rejected multiple settlement offers from Highport. A jury found IA liable, resulting in a $13.7 million judgment.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas determined that Penn National breached its duties to defend and indemnify IA. However, a jury found that Westport violated its Stowers duty by not accepting reasonable settlement offers. The district court ruled that Penn National's breaches occurred after Westport's Stowers violation and thus did not impact the case outcome.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed that Penn National breached its duties but held that Westport's Stowers duty was triggered by Highport's settlement offers, which Westport unreasonably rejected. The court found that the district court's jury instructions were correct and that Penn National had standing to assert a Stowers claim. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in its jury instructions or in setting aside the jury's verdict regarding the May 2009 demand.Ultimately, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that Westport was liable for the excess judgment due to its Stowers violation, and Penn National was entitled to reimbursement for the amount it paid on IA's behalf. View "Westport Insurance Corporation v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company" on Justia Law