Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

In this business dispute, Plaintiff K’s Merchandise Mart, Inc. challenged orders by the district judge granting summary judgment for Defendants William Weinstein and Frank Morton and requiring Plaintiff to pay Defendants $35,000 in sanctions. The First Circuit affirmed the summary judgment rulings but vacated the sanctions order and remanded for reconsideration of the sanctions matter, holding (1) summary judgment was properly granted on Plaintiff’s claims for fraudulent inducement, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of contract; and (2) the judge erred when he ordered sanctions against Plaintiff rather than against its attorneys. View "Eldridge v. Gordon Brothers Group, LLC" on Justia Law

Tate, sells ingredients to the food and beverage industry. Glatt sells processing equipment to the food industry. In 2008 the two entered a contract: Glatt would, for $7,042,022, design and build a three-story food-manufacturing machine (granulator) for Tate’s Sycamore, Illinois operation. The following year, with the granulator running, it caught fire and was seriously damaged. A flammable corn product that gave off flammable dust was being processed at the time. More than three years later Tate sued, claiming that the fire had resulted from defects in the granulator—either failure to install a fire-suppression system or defects in filters essential to filtering the flammable dust from the machine's exhaust. Tate sought damages of $7,784,767 for property damage, repair costs, and lost profits. Its insurer paid $2,743,248, and joined the litigation. Glatt counterclaimed for the unpaid balance on the contract. A magistrate ruled that a contract provision, forbidding the recovery of “special damages,” prohibited Tate from recovering lost profits. A jury awarded the insurer $853,254, but Tate and Glatt nothing. The parties’ contract entitled a prevailing party to “reasonable legal and other professional fees and expenses.” The judge awarded Tate $785,422.50, and its insurer $213,313.50, in attorneys’ fees plus expenses of $356,075.96. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to evidentiary rulings. View "Tate & Lyle Americas LLC v. Glatt Air Techniques Inc." on Justia Law

A newly-constructed multi‐story condominium building suffered water damage, allegedly caused by the painting subcontractor, National, failing to apply an adequate coat of sealant to the exterior. In Illinois state court, the condominium association sued the general contractor, developer, and subcontractors. The defendants tendered the defense to Westfield, National’s insurer, Westfield filed a federal action seeking a declaration that it owed no duty to defend in the underlying action. The district court determined that the complaint triggered Westfield’s duty to defend. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment, rejecting an argument that failure to apply an adequate amount of paint cannot be considered an “accident” that would constitute a covered “occurrence” under the policy. Westfield also argued that because the damage is to the building itself, which was a new construction and not an existing structure, the association has not demonstrated that there was property damage that is subject to its policy. The policy defines “occurrence” to include the “continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same harmful conditions,” so the allegation that National acted negligently was sufficient under Illinois law to constitute an “occurrence.” National’s actions allegedly damaged parts of the building that were outside of the scope of its work, so the complaint alleges potentially covered property damage sufficient to invoke the duty to defend. View "Westfield Insurance Co. v. National Decorating Service, Inc." on Justia Law

Gary Jet began operating as a Fixed Base Operator (FBO) at the Authority's Gary/Chicago International Airport in 1991. The 2006 “Minimum Standards,” regulations governing FBOs, contained a 1.5% charge on gross revenue for commercial FBO services beginning in 2001, “pending the expiration of existing leases which do not incorporate these terms.” Gary Jet’s lease did not contain this provision. During negotiations for a new lease, the parties agreed that Gary Jet would instead pay “supplemental rent” of 10% of certain fees. A January 2007 “First Amended Lease” with a 39-year term, required Gary Jet to pay base rent plus supplemental rent and stated Gary Jet “shall abide by” the Minimum Standards, except when they conflict with the 2007 Lease. The lease stated that the Minimum Standards “shall be … made applicable to” subsequent lease agreements. In 2013, Gary Jet sued for breach of contract. The parties entered settled in 2014. Gary Jet agreed that New Minimum Standards controlled any conflict with its lease. A 2014 revised lease stated that the Minimum Standards controlled any conflicts. The initial draft of new Minimum Standards did not require Gary Jet to pay a percentage of gross revenue. In 2015, the Authority stated that it intended require that each FBO pay a percentage of gross revenues. Gary Jet objected, but the Authority approved the New Minimum Standards with the provision. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of Gary Jet’s suit under the Contracts Clause. Gary Jet cannot plausibly demonstrate that it is without a remedy for any violation of its contractual rights, which is essential to a Contracts-Clause claim. View "Gary Jet Center, Inc. v. AFCO AvPORTS Management, LLC" on Justia Law

Stine Seed filed suit against A&W and its principles, alleging contract claims related to A&W's failure to pay for corn and soybeen seed. The district court found in favor of Stine Seed on its implied-in-fact contract claim against Defendant Williams in the amount of $28,160, and found in favor of Williams and A&W on the remaining claims. The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Williams did not sign the July Adjustment and in finding Williams' version of events credible; no implied-in-fact contract existed between Williams and Stine Seed with respect to the seed planted by J&A; and the district court did not err in finding Williams not liable for unjust enrichment. The court held, however, that the district court should have given A&W's admission that Alexander had apparent authority conclusive effect, and its finding that Alexander lacked authority to bind A&W to the Note was clear error. Therefore, the verdict in favor of A&W on Stine Seed's breach of contract claim must be reversed and remanded. View "Stine Seed Co. v. A & W Agribusiness, LLC" on Justia Law

In this dispute between a judgment creditor and a Connecticut State Marshall over whether the Marshal was entitled to a statute that awards a commission, the Second Circuit concluded that Connecticut state law was insufficiently developed for the court to answer the question raised on appeal. Therefore, the court certified the following questions to the Connecticut Supreme Court: (1) Was Marshal Pesiri entitled to a fifteen percent fee under the terms of CONN. GEN. STAT. 52‐8 261(a)(F)? (2) In answering the first question, does it matter that the writ was ignored and that the monies that were the subject of the writ were procured only after the judgment creditor, not the marshal, pursued further enforcement proceedings in the courts? View "Corsair Special Situations Fund, L.P. v. Pesiri" on Justia Law

Disappointed by the limited fruits of its multimillion-dollar investment with Abbott Laboratories (Abbott), John Hancock Life Insurance Company (Hancock) sued, seeking to recover damages under its contract with Abbott or, alternatively, to rescind the contract. At issue in this appeal was a contract provision that the parties viewed disparately either as a liquidated damages provision - and thus enforceable - or a penalty - and thus unenforceable. The district court concluded that the provision at issue was unenforceable. The First Circuit reversed this holding and affirmed the district court’s judgment in other respects, holding (1) Abbott failed to carry its burden of proving that the key provision was a penalty rather than a valid and enforceable liquidated damages provision; and (2) the district court did not err in striking Hancock’s prayer for rescission where Hancock recovered damages under the contract for Abbott’s breach of the contract. View "John Hancock Life Insurance Co. v. Abbott Laboratories" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork, alleging that Kolbe sold them defective windows that leak and rot. Plaintiffs brought common-law and statutory claims for breach of express and implied warranties, negligent design and manufacturing of the windows, negligent or fraudulent misrepresentations as to the condition of the windows, and unjust enrichment. The district court granted partial summary judgment in Kolbe’s favor on a number of claims, excluded plaintiffs’ experts, denied class certification, and found that plaintiffs’ individual claims could not survive without expert support. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Plaintiffs forfeited their arguments with respect to their experts’ qualifications under “Daubert.” Individual plaintiffs failed to establish that Kolbe’s alleged misrepresentation somehow caused them loss, given that their builders only used Kolbe windows. Though internal emails, service-request forms, and photos of rotting or leaking windows may suggest problems with Kolbe windows, that evidence did not link the problems to an underlying design defect, as opposed to other, external factors such as construction flaws or climate issues. View "Haley v. Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co.," on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of an agent contract dispute between Bret Kunz (“Bret”) and Nield, Inc. (“N.I.”) authorizing Bret to sell insurance on behalf of N.I. N.I. is owned by two brothers, Bryan Nield (“Bryan”) and Benjamin Nield. A dispute arose concerning the method and type of compensation available to Bret under the Contract. Bret filed a complaint seeking, inter alia, a declaratory judgment interpreting the Contract. The district court held the 2009 Contract did not provide for profit sharing as Bret claimed. Bret and his wife, Marti, (collectively, the “Kunzes”) appealed. Finding no reversible errors with respect to how the district court interpreted the Contract, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. View "Kunz v. Nield, Inc." on Justia Law

The Delaware Court of Chancery granted in part a motion for summary judgment in a breach of contract dispute regarding Duffield's involvement in the design of a wastewater treatment system. The court granted the motion as to Count I against defendants Don Lockwood and John Stanton, holding them jointly and severally liable for the total amount of $82,153.17 plus pre- and post-judgment interest; imposed a constructive trust over the assets transferred to defendants, ordered a full accounting of the proceeds of the distributions, and ordered disgorgement of any profits or proceeds from the transfers; denied the motion as it related to Count I claims against Pamala Stanton; and held that the motion for rule to show cause was moot. View "Duffield Associates, Inc. v. Lockwood Brothers, LLC" on Justia Law