Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

In this dispute regarding the commercialization of a patent covering a method for pooling insurance policies the Court of Chancery granted Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings in which they argued that they did not owe any of the contractual or fiduciary obligations that Plaintiff sought to enforce, holding that Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.Plaintiff brought this action asserting claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duties related to Defendants’ business development of a patent-holding entity and Defendants’ failure to provide certain information to Plaintiff. The Court of Chancery granted Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, thus mooting Plaintiff’s motion to compel and motion for default judgment, holding That Defendants carried their burden to show that Plaintiff could prove no set of facts in support of his claims that would entitle him to relief and that Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "Ross v. Institutional Longevity Assets LLC" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from a dispute between SilverWing at Sandpoint, LLC (“SilverWing”) and Appellant Bonner County, Idaho (the “County”). SilverWing sought to develop a residential hangar and taxiway adjacent to the Sandpoint Airport for residents who wished to park their aircraft in their home garage. SilverWing alleged that “[i]n 2007, the County provided to SilverWing an ALP that reflected the existing location of the Airport’s runway, and made no mention or reference to any plans for the runway to be moved. At the same time, the County promised that there were no plans regarding changes to runway location which would be incompatible with SilverWing’s development.” During the initial stages of engineering for the development, the County informed SilverWing that it needed to move the taxiway from where it was originally planned onto County-owned airport property, to accord with the County’s Airport Layout Plan (ALP). SilverWing proceeded with its development based on the County’s assurances, and built a taxiway and other infrastructure, including streets, to support its development. Once the taxiway was built, SilverWing learned that the placement of the taxiway was not approved by the FAA. After several years of legal maneuvering, SilverWing proceeded against the County in court, ultimately on a theory of promissory estoppel. After trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of SilverWing. The County filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV”), which the district court denied. The County appealed. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the district court’s ruling on the JNOV and vacated its ruling regarding attorney fees. The Court determined the district court erred with respect to JNOV on the claim of promissory estoppel: "SilverWing actually got what it claims the County promised—an FAA approved taxiway in the location where SilverWing built it. SilverWing can now sell its development with no regulatory uncertainty." View "SilverWing v. Bonner County" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee First American Title Insurance Co. appealed a district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of and attorneys’ fees to Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant Banner Bank (“the Bank”). The district court held that First American had a duty to defend and indemnify its insured, the Bank, breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and was responsible for attorneys’ fees in this case. This resulted in an award of damages ($675,000) plus attorneys’ fees in an underlying lawsuit ($159,288), and consequential damages of attorneys’ fees in this case ($130,411.50). The Bank cross-appealed in the event that the award of consequential damages was procedurally incorrect. The Tenth Circuit concluded First American did not breach its duty of good faith and fair dealing, so any award of damages arising from that implied term was improper. Because it was error to award attorneys’ fees, arguments whether the Bank should have been awarded fees under its renewed motion for attorneys’ fees or under Rule 54(d) were moot, and the Bank’s cross-appeal under Rule 60 should have been dismissed. Because the Court concluded there was no duty to defend or indemnify, nor a breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, the damages awards could not stand. On remand, the district court was ordered to vacate its orders and judgments to the contrary and enter judgment in favor of First American. View "Banner Bank v. First American Title Insurance" on Justia Law

Sköld coined the name “Restoraderm” for a proprietary drug-delivery formulation that he developed for potential use in skin-care products. He entered into a 2001 letter of intent with CollaGenex, a skin-care company, stating that “[a]ll trademarks associated with the drug delivery system … shall be applied for and registered in the name of CollaGenex and be the exclusive property of CollaGenex.” Their 2002 contract reiterated those provisions and stated that termination of the agreement would not affect any vested rights. With Sköld’s cooperation, CollaGenex applied to register the Restoraderm mark. Under a 2004 Agreement, Sköld transferred Restoraderm patent rights and goodwill to CollaGenex, without mentioning trademark rights. After Galderma bought CollaGenex it used Restoraderm as a brand name on products employing other technologies. In 2009, Galderma terminated the 2004 Agreement, asserting that it owned the trade name and that Sköld should not use the name. Sköld markets products based on the original Restoraderm technology that do not bear the Restoraderm mark. Galderma’s Restoraderm product line has enjoyed international success. Sköld sued, alleging trademark infringement, false advertising, unfair competition, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Only Sköld’s unjust enrichment claim was successful. The Third Circuit reversed in part, absolving Galderma of liability. The 2004 agreement, rather than voiding CollaGenex’s ownership of the mark by implication, confirmed that CollaGenex owned the Restoraderm mark. Galderma succeeded to those vested rights. View "Skold v. Galderma Laboratories L.P." on Justia Law

Debtor brought an adversary proceeding against Kestrel for breach of contract, alleging that Kestrel failed to pay for services owed that debtor provided Kestrel to help it collateralize a corporate debt offering with life settlements. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment upholding the bankruptcy court's holding that the contract was voidable because debtor failed to register as an investment adviser in violation of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The court held that debtor contracted with Kestrel to advise it about life settlements, and the life settlements contemplated in the origination agreement were investment contracts within the meaning of the Act. View "Living Benefits Asset Management v. Kestrel Aircraft Co." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a Church on its lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that its claim filed pursuant to its property insurance policy with an Insurance Company was improperly denied, holding that ambiguities in the policy resulted in coverage for the collapse of a ceiling in one section of the church.The Insurance Company denied the Church’s claim, citing the “faulty construction” exclusion in the policy. In its complaint, the church argued that the collapse was caused by hidden decay such that the “additional coverage - collapse” provision applied. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the meaning of “decay” was ambiguous and that ambiguity must be resolved in the Church’s favor. View "Easthampton Congregational Church v. Church Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Liberty Mutual Insurance Corporation on Brendan Kelly’s claim that Liberty was bound to provide uninsured motorist coverage for his benefit, holding that no uninsured motorist coverage was provided under the policy.The insurance contract was an umbrella policy issued to Kelly’s employer and the named insured and was issued in New Hampshire. The named insured rejected uninsured motorist coverage in writing, but the writing was not incorporated into the policy. Kelly argued that that the lack of an explicit reference to the named insured’s written rejection rendered that rejection inoperative against an additional insured like himself, and that provision of uninsured motorist coverage was therefore required under state law. The First Circuit disagreed, holding that Kelly’s position was not implicit in the statute. View "Kelly v. Liberty Insurance Corp." on Justia Law

UFAA filed suit seeking declaratory relief against the Companies and FGI (collectively, Farmers), alleging that Farmers engaged in numerous practices that violated the terms of Agent Appointment Agreements signed prior to 2009. The trial court found that UFAA lacked standing to pursue its claims and failed to demonstrate it was entitled to declaratory relief.The Court of Appeal held that UFAA had associational standing to pursue its claims related to performance and office standards, but did not have standing to pursue its other claims. However, on the merits, UFAA was not entitled to declaratory relief on its claims related to office locations and performance standards. In this case, although the Agreements did not expressly prohibit specific office locations or require agents meet performance standards, Farmers could terminate agencies for such reasons pursuant to the no-cause termination provision. The court also held that UFAA's single enterprise arguments were moot and UFAA's arguments related to the motion for new trial were meritless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United Farmers Agents Assoc. v. Farmers Group, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming an award of actual and punitive damages in favor of Carduco, Inc., a Mercedes-Benz franchisee, on its fraud claim against Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, holding that the court of appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s judgment, as modified.In its complaint Caduco alleged that Mercedes fraudulently induced it to purchase the assets of the previous Mercedes-Benz dealer in Harlingen, Texas. Specifically, Carduco argued that Mercedes had promised Carduco that, if it agreed to take on the franchise in Harlington, Carduco would eventually be able to relocate to the McAllen area as the exclusive Mercedes-Benz dealership there. A jury found for Carduco and awarded both actual and punitive damages. The court of appeals affirmed as modified by a suggestion of remittitur of the punitive damages award. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the parties’ written agreement directly contradicted Carduco’s purported belief that Mercedes had promised to McAllen area to it, thereby negating Carduco’s justifiable reliance as a matter of law. The Court then rendered judgment that Carduco take nothing. View "Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Carduco, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiff’s two-count petition, holding that the district court erred in holding that a seller of auction services of certain machinery is entitled to summary judgment on a claim brought by a buyer of those services under the Door-to-Door Sales Act (DDSA), Iowa Code chapter 555A.Plaintiff brought this action claiming a violation of the DDSA and seeking a declaratory judgment challenging the underlying sales contract because of an invalid execution by a third party and because of fraud in the inducement. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant, concluding, among other things, that the DDSA does not apply to a contract for auction services, such as the contract in this case. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant was not entitled to summary judgment on the DDSA claim where Defendant presented no evidence that Plaintiff’s purpose in purchasing the auction services was not “primarily for personal, family, or household purposes”; and (2) because the declaratory judgment count had allegations beyond the DDSA the district court erred in dismissing this count of the petition. View "Morris v. Steffes Group, Inc." on Justia Law