Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirming the circuit court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and reinstated the circuit court’s grant of partial summary judgment to Plaintiff as to Defendant’s liability under Haw. Rev. Stat. 481B-14.Plaintiff brought suit against Defendant-hotel on behalf of himself and other customers who paid a service charge to the hotel in connection with the purchase of food or beverages, claiming that the hotel’s conduct was an unfair or deceptive act or practice (UDAP) under sections 481B-14 and 480-2. The circuit court granted summary judgment as to liability only, ruling that Defendant was liable under section 481B-14. After a jury trial on damages, the jury awarded $269,114.73 to the class. The circuit court subsequently granted Defendant’s motion for JMOL on the theory that there was insufficient evidence that Plaintiffs suffered injury as a result of Defendant’s violation of the statute. The ICA affirmed on remand. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that Plaintiff and the class sustained contract-based damages and damages under the UDAP statute. View "Kawakami v. Kahala Hotel Investors, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that trial courts must expressly rule on objections in writing for error to be preserved.Plaintiffs sued Allstate Texas Lloyds and one of its adjusters (collectively, Allstate) asserting contractual and extra-contractual claims. Allstate moved for summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed a summary-judgment response that referred to certain pieces of summary-judgment evidence, including an affidavit, but Plaintiffs failed to attach any evidence to their response. The only evidence Plaintiffs provided was filed late. Allstate objected in writing to Plaintiffs’ summary-judgment evidence on multiple grounds. The trial court granted summary judgment for Allstate but did not specify the grounds for its judgment. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs’ only summary-judgment evidence was incompetent. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) unless Allstate complained of a defect in the evidence’s substance, rather than its form, it was obligated not only to object but also to obtain a ruling on its objection; and (2) Allstate’s objections were waived in this case. View "Seim v. Allstate Texas Lloyds" on Justia Law

In this divorce case, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the finding of the trial court that Wife’s attempt to rescind a premarital agreement triggered a clause in the agreement under which Wife lost a $5 million payment otherwise due to her.Prior to the parties’ marriage, they entered into an “Agreement in Contemplation of Marriage” under which Husband would make a lump-sum cash payment to Wife upon the entry of a divorce decree. The Agreement also contained a “no-contest” or “forfeiture” clause, under which Wife would lose her contractual right to the lump-sum payment. After Husband filed for divorce, Wife requested rescission of the Agreement. Ultimately, the trial court concluded that Wife forfeited any cash payment under the Agreement. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that by unsuccessfully seeking rescission of the Agreement and pursuing that remedy throughout the litigation, Wife lost her contractual right to the lump-sum payment under the Agreement. View "In re Marriage of I.C." on Justia Law

This appeal involved questions about the insurance coverage available to defendant Honeywell International, Inc. (Honeywell) for thousands of bodily-injury claims premised on exposure to brake and clutch pads (friction products) containing asbestos. The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification to address two issues: (1) whether the law of New Jersey or Michigan (the headquarters location of Honeywell’s predecessor when the disputed excess insurance policies were issued) should control in the allocation of insurance liability among insurers for nationwide products-liability claims; and (2) whether it was error not to require the policyholder, Honeywell, to contribute in the allocation of insurance liability based on the time after which the relevant coverage became unavailable in the marketplace (that is, since 1987). The Supreme Court determined New Jersey law on the allocation of liability among insurers applied in this matter, and the Court set forth the pertinent choice-of-law principles to resolve this dispute over insurance coverage for numerous products-liability claims. Concerning the second question, on these facts, the Court also affirmed the determination to follow the unavailability exception to the continuous-trigger method of allocation set forth in Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. United Ins. Co., 138 N.J. 437 (1994). View "Continental Insurance Company v. Honeywell International, Inc." on Justia Law

Phillip Moore, Gloria Moore, and Katelyn Moore sued Olshan Foundation Repair of Jackson, LLC (Olshan), and Wayne Brown. Olshan and Brown sought to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration provision within a contract between Phillip Moore and Olshan for the repair of the foundation of the Moores’ home. The circuit court ordered Phillip and Gloria Moore to arbitrate their claims. But because the circuit court declined to order Katelyn Moore to the arbitral forum, Olshan and Brown appealed. Finding that Katelyn Moore was neither a third-party beneficiary to the foundation-repair contract nor was she bound by direct-benefit estoppel, the Mississippi Supreme Court found Katelyn Moore’s claims, including negligence and intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress, were wholly independent of the terms of the contract to which she was not a party. As such, Olshan was not allowed to enforce an arbitration clause respecting Katelyn Moore’s claims, which were unrelated to the contract. View "Olshan Foundation Repair Company of Jackson, LLC v. Moore" on Justia Law

Thomas Lunneborg claimed he was entitled to $60,000 severance because he was terminated without cause. Lunneborg was hired to be Chief Operating Officer (COO) of My Fun Life Corporation (MFL) on April 16, 2014. Lunneborg was terminated on July 29, 2014, ostensibly for cause. Lunneborg brought this action seeking his severance pay pursuant to the employment contract. After a bench trial, the district court found MFL did not have cause to terminate Lunneborg. Therefore, Lunneborg was awarded $60,000 in damages, which was trebled to $180,000 under the Idaho Wage Claims Act. Lunneborg was also awarded attorney fees. The court also pierced MFL’s corporate veil and found that Lunneborg’s judgment could be collected against MFL’s sole shareholder, Dan Edwards (Edwards), and against Edwards’ wife, Carrie Edwards (Carrie), personally. MFL, Edwards, and Carrie appealed, contending that the trial court erred by: (1) failing to uphold Edwards’ determination that Lunneborg was fired for cause; (2) piercing the corporate veil; and (3) abusing its discretion in the amount of attorney fees it awarded to Lunneborg. Finding no reversible error, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. View "Lunneborg v. My Fun Life" on Justia Law

At issue was whether a contract executed by Becker Property Services LLC and Cintas Corporation No. 2 containing indemnification and choice-of-law provisions entitled Cintas to indemnification for damages caused by its own negligence.The parties agreed that Ohio’s law controlled the interpretation of their contract but disagreed over whether that provision should be enforced. The circuit court concluded that the contract did not require Becker to defend or indemnify Cintas for its own negligence under Wisconsin law, adding that, if Ohio law had applied instead, the indemnification provision would have been sufficient to require Becker to indemnify Cintas for its own negligence. The court of appeals reversed, holding that, even under Wisconsin law, the contract required Becker to defend and indemnify Cintas for its own negligence. The Supreme Court held (1) no public policy required the Court to preempt the parties’ agreement that Ohio law would control the contract; and (2) the contract’s indemnification agreement unambiguously required Becker to defend and indemnify Cintas even for its own negligence. View "Cintas Corp. No. 2 v. Becker Property Services LLC" on Justia Law

Beginning in December 2006, plaintiffs made several loans to defendant Lee, who is You’s father. Lee defaulted. In July 2013, a judgment was entered against Lee for $1,143,576. No part of the debt has been paid. In October 2016, plaintiffs filed a complaint against Lee and You, seeking to set aside allegedly fraudulent conveyances and an accounting, claiming that in 2013, Lee paid $104,850 to Northeastern University for You’s tuition and other expenses, knowing that he had incurred, or would incur, debts beyond his ability to pay, intending to “hinder, delay, or defraud” his creditors, including plaintiffs. You contended Lee’s transfers were not fraudulent because they did not lack consideration and that You was not a beneficiary of the transfer, having received only the intangible benefits of an education. The court of appeal affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. Noting that there is no authority on whether creditors may attack college tuition payments as fraudulent transfers under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (Civ. Code 3439) the court reasoned that a parent can reasonably assume that paying for a child to obtain a degree will enhance the child's financial well-being which will, in turn, confer an economic benefit on the parent. View "Lo v. Lee" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Brandon Forvendel was injured in a multi-vehicle accident in 2013. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was driving a Chevrolet Equinox owned by him and insured under a policy issued by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), which included uninsured motorist (“UM”) coverage. Plaintiff recovered the limits of his UM coverage under his State Farm policy. At the time of the 2013 accident, plaintiff lived in the household of his mother, Deborah Forvendel, who was also insured by State Farm. Plaintiff also sought to recover under his mother’s State Farm UM policy, which carried significantly higher policy limits. State Farm refused to allow him to recover under his mother's policy, citing the anti-stacking provisions of La. R.S. 22:1295(1)(c). In this case, the issue presented for the Louisiana Supreme Court’s review centered on whether the insurer waived its defenses to plaintiff’s current claim by paying on an earlier claim to him in error. The Court found the insurer did not waive its rights. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgments of the courts below. View "Forvendel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In a complaint seeking an injunction for breach of contract, the district court was not required to find irreparable harm based solely on the language of a private agreement and did not abuse its discretion by declining to grant an injunction in light of the absence of evidence of irreparable harm.St. Jude Medical sued Heath Carter and Boston Scientific Corporation after Carter left his job at St. Jude to work for Boston Scientific, alleging that Carter had violated his employment agreement with St. Jude. The agreement stated that if Carter breached its terms, St. Judge would suffer irreparable injury, and St. Jude would be entitled to an injunction against Carter and his new employer because St. Jude’s remedy at law for damages would be inadequate. The district court concluded that St. Jude was not entitled to an injunction because, although Carter breached the agreement, St. Jude failed to demonstrate that it would suffer irreparable harm from that breach. The court of appeals reversed, ruling that the district court erred by failing to consider the terms of the agreement when deciding whether to enjoin Carter. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court was not required to exercise its equitable authority simply by reason of the contract language. View "St. Jude Medical, Inc. v. Carter" on Justia Law