Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The issue this case presented for the Louisiana Supreme Court's review was whether the duty to defend in long latency disease cases could be prorated between an insurer and its insured when occurrence-based policies provide coverage for only a portion of the time during which exposure occurred. In the underlying Arceneaux suit, plaintiffs alleged that they suffered hearing loss from exposure to unreasonably loud noise in the course of their work at American Sugar’s refinery in Arabi, Louisiana. Two sets of plaintiffs, the Barbe plaintiffs and the Waguespack plaintiffs, filed suit against American Sugar in 2006. These suits were consolidated with the Arceneaux action, which was filed in 1999 against American Sugar’s predecessor, Tate & Lyle North American Sugars, Inc. This opinion concerned only the Barbe and Waguespack plaintiffs, and not the Arceneaux plaintiffs whose claims had been litigated extensively in the trial court, the court of appeal, and the Louisiana Supreme Court. Continental Casualty Company argued that defense costs should have been prorated among insurers and the insured if there were periods of non-coverage. American Sugar Refining, Inc. claimed that the duty to defend as agreed upon in the policy provided for a complete defense so long as the duty to defend attached, even if some claims fell outside of coverage. The Supreme Court held that the duty to defend should have been prorated in this case based upon policy language. View "Arceneaux v Amstar Corp." on Justia Law

Junkermeir, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C. (Junkermeir) was a Montana accounting firm with offices in several Montana cities. Junkermeir lost its Bozeman branch office after the majority of its Bozeman shareholders decided to start their own firm, taking a significant number of Junkermier’s clients with them. Junkermeir filed a complaint against the former shareholders, claiming breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The district court dismissed the breach of contract claim on summary judgment, concluding that the contractual covenant restricting competition that Junkermeir sought to enforce was unenforceable. After a trial, the district court ruled that most of the former shareholders owed no legal duty to Junkermeir and that while the remaining former shareholder breached his fiduciary duty to Junkermeir, Junkermeir failed to prove awardable damages from that breach. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding that the district court (1) erred in ruling that the agreement was not an enforceable contract; and (2) did not err in concluding that only one former shareholder breached a fiduciary duty but erred in concluding that Junkermeir was not entitled to collect any damages stemming from that breach. View "Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C. v. Alborn, Uithoven, Riekenberg, P.C." on Justia Law

In consolidated appeals, Goliath Energy Services, LLC, and George Satterfield challenged orders denying their N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motions to vacate default judgments entered against them in favor of Monster Heavy Haulers, LLC, and Rossco Crane and Rigging, Inc. Monster was in the oil field construction, trucking, and rigging business. Rossco was in the business of providing various crane and rigging services. Goliath was a limited liability company with its principal place of business located in Grand Junction, Colorado, and it conducted business in North Dakota. Satterfield was Goliath's president and Karl Troestler was its chief financial officer. Rossco and Monster sued Goliath, Troestler, and Satterfield to collect payment of outstanding balances owed for services provided to Goliath. A default judgment eventually entered in favor of Monster for $240,107.23. Rossco advised its attorney that negotiations had also failed with the defendants. Rossco's attorney filed the closing papers with the clerk of court, and a default judgment was entered against the defendants in favor of Rossco for $97,233.04 a month later. On appeal, Goliath and Satterfield argued the district court erred in denying their motions to vacate the default judgments under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b). The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded after review that the district court acquired personal jurisdiction over the defendants in the underlying actions and did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions for relief from judgment. Accordingly, the Court affirmed. View "Monster Heavy Haulers, LLC v. Goliath Energy Services, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2007, Landlord entered into a written agreement for the lease of commercial real estate to Tenant. In 2009, Landlord filed a complaint against Tenant and Richard Johnson alleging that Tenant breached the lease and that Johnson breached the personal guaranty agreement in the lease. The trial court dismissed Landlord’s claims against Johnson, concluding that Johnson was not personally liable for the obligations in the lease because he did not sign the lease in his personal capacity. At issue on appeal was whether Johnson agreed to be personally liable for Tenant’s obligations when he signed the agreement a second time. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Johnson’s second signature, “which followed a paragraph clearly indicating that the parties agreed that [Johnson] would be personally responsible for [Tenant’s] obligations,” was effective to bind Johnson. Remanded. View "MLG Enters., LLC v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Stevens worked for Baker from 1989 until 1996. When his employment ended, Stevens signed a contract in which he promised to maintain the confidentiality of Baker’s trade secrets. In 1999, Stevens sued, alleging failure to fully pay the compensation due him during his employment. The parties eventually settled; Baker paid Stevens $10,000. Around that time, Stevens formed S&S Chemical to produce polyethylene products. Baker suspected that S&S was improperly using Baker’s EP Processes and sent Stevens a letter in 2002 reminding Stevens of his Termination Agreement. Stevens responded that he had independently developed the processes used to manufacture S&S’s chemicals. Baker later confirmed that S&S was not then using Baker’s confidential information. Baker again became suspicious and, in 2014, sued Stevens. The Sixth Circuit affirmed judgment in favor of Stevens. Petrolite unquestionably knew of and approved each step that gave rise to the settlement contract at issue, the Release Provision of which unambiguously released Stevens from the obligations of the Termination Agreement. View "Baker Hughes Inc. v. S&S Chemical, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff purchased a 2006 Chevrolet Cobalt from Car Source for $8,525.00. Plaintiff paid $1,248, using a grant from the state of Michigan. A salesman entered information from her most recent pay stubs and a recent bank statement into a computer program that incorrectly calculated that Plaintiff’s monthly income as $1,817.38. Plaintiff’s actual income was about $900 per month. It is not clear how the error occurred. Based on the incorrect estimate and her deposit, the APR on Plaintiff’s loan was set at 24.49%. Plaintiff signed an agreement. Days later she was notified that the terms had to be modified and returned to Car Source. Plaintiff claims that Car Source employees began “yelling and swearing” at her; removed her belongings from the Cobalt and “dumped them” at her feet; and stated that if she wanted her car back, she would have to make an additional payment of $1,500. Plaintiff refused to sign a new agreement and was never provided with written notice explaining why her credit arrangement had been or needed to be changed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment that Car Source violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. 1691, by changing the terms without providing a written notice with specific reasons. The court reversed the district court’s determination that injunctive relief was not available to Plaintiff under the ECOA and reversed summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff’s statutory conversion claims. View "Tyson v. Sterling Rental, Inc." on Justia Law

Following the liquidation of Pine Top Insurance, some of its receivables were assigned to PTRIL, a Delaware LLC with its principal place of business in New York. One of those receivables was owed by Nissan, a Japanese insurance company that transacted business in the U.S. Transfercom, a United Kingdom insurance company had assumed that obligation. PTRIL filed suit in state court alleging breach of contract against Transfercom and seeking recovery under reinsurance treaties entered into by Transfercom’s predecessor and Pine Top in 1981 and 1982. Transfercom removed the litigation to federal court. PTRIL moved to remand, contending that Transfercom had waived its right to remove the case in the reinsurance treaties. Those treaties contain service of suit clauses, stating: In the event of the failure of the Reinsurer hereon to pay any amount claimed to be due hereunder, the Reinsurer hereon, at the request of the Company, will submit to the jurisdiction of any Court of competent jurisdiction within the United States. The district court found that under the plain language, PTRIL reserved the exclusive authority to select jurisdiction and venue; Transfercom waived its right to remove the case to federal court. The Seventh Circuit affirmed: to allow removal would be to ignore the contract’s plain and ordinary meanin View "Pine Top Receivables of Ill. v. Transfercom, Ltd." on Justia Law

Relying on an advertiser’s claim that its fax advertising program complied with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. 227, Stevens & Ricci allowed the advertiser to fax thousands of advertisements to potential customers on its behalf. More than six years later, Hymed filed a class action TCPA lawsuit, which settled with a $2,000,000 judgment against Stevens & Ricci. While that suit was pending, Auto-Owners sought a declaratory judgment, claiming that the terms of the insurance policy it provided Stevens & Ricci did not obligate it to indemnify or defend Stevens & Ricci in the class action. The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment, finding that the sending of unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of the TCPA did not fall within the terms of the insurance policy. The “Businessowners Insurance Policy” obligated Auto-Owners to “pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of ‘bodily injury’, ‘property damage’, ‘personal injury’ or ‘advertising injury’ to which this insurance applies.” The “advertising injury” deals only with the publication of private information, View "Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Stevens & Ricci Inc" on Justia Law

Chris Wagner sued MSE Technology Applications, Inc. and related MSE entities (collectively, the MSE entities) and Butte Local Development Corporation (BLDC), alleging that they had improperly interfered with his attempt to purchase certain property to establish a commercial nursery. Plaintiff later amended his complaint to add Shea Relators as a defendant. The district court dismissed Wagner’s claims at trial pursuant to Mont. R. Civ. P. 50. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) did not err in granting judgment as a matter of law to the MSE entities and BLDC; but (2) erred in granting Shea Realtors summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law. Remanded. View "Wagner v. MSE Technology Applications, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of participating in a racketeering enterprise and conspiracy, and a narcotics conspiracy. Defendant was also convicted of two counts of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime: one for possession of a firearm in furtherance of the racketeering enterprise and conspiracy and the other for possession of a firearm in furtherance of the narcotics conspiracy. Defendant appealed. The court held in United States v. Anglin, that the existence of a second or subsequent 18 U.S.C. 924(c) conviction is a sentencing factor that need not be determined by a jury. Alleyne v. United States has not altered the court's holding in Anglin. In this case, the court concluded that, given the evidence that defendant possessed multiple firearms on separate occasions, there was an ample basis for the jury to convict him of two separate violations of section 924(c); that there was no jury instruction clarifying that the firearms subject of each section 924(c) charge must have been possessed on separate occasions does not amount to plain error; and it was not plain error for the district court to find implicitly at sentencing that the two section 924(c) convictions were based on separate conduct, thereby subjecting defendant to mandatory minimum, consecutive sentences based on a “second or subsequent” section 924(c) conviction. The court considered defendant's remaining arguments and found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Boykin" on Justia Law