Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

When Hampton Court Nursing Father admitted Father to its nursing home facility, Son and Hampton Court signed a a nursing home contract that included an arbitration clause. Father did not sign the contract. Son later filed suit on Father’s behalf, alleging negligence and statutory violations. The circuit court granted Hampton Court’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the judicial proceedings. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that Father was the intended third-party beneficiary of the nursing home contract, and therefore, Hampton Court could bind him to its contract, which Father never signed. The Supreme Court quashed the Third District’s decision, holding that the third-party beneficiary doctrine did not bind Father to the arbitration agreement in the nursing home admission agreement. View "Mendez v. Hampton Court Nursing Center, LLC" on Justia Law

Jani-King, the world’s largest commercial cleaning franchisor, classifies its franchisees as independent contractors. Its cleaning contracts are between Jani-King and the customer; the franchisee is not a party, but may elect to provide or not provide services under a contract. Jani-King exercises a significant amount of control over how franchisees operate and controls billing and accounting. Two Jani-King franchisees assert that they are misclassified and should be treated as employees. On behalf of a class of Jani-King franchisees in the Philadelphia area (approximately 300 franchisees), they sought unpaid wages under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law (WPCL), 43 Pa. Stat. 260.1–260.12. The Third Circuit affirmed certification of the class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). The misclassification claim can be made on a class-wide basis through common evidence, primarily the franchise agreement and manuals. Under Pennsylvania law, no special treatment is accorded to the franchise relationship. A franchisee may be an employee or an independent contractor depending on the nature of the franchise system controls. View "Williams v. Jani-King of Philadelphia Inc" on Justia Law

Defendant insurance company denied uninsured motorist coverage to a third party beneficiary injured in an automobile accident because it had cancelled the policy before the accident occurred. The third party sued, and the insurer sought summary judgment. The third party opposed, contending the cancellation was invalid because a written notice seeking information sent by the insurer to the insureds prior to cancellation was unreasonable as a matter of law, and disputed facts existed as to whether the insurer had mailed the notice of cancellation and actually cancelled the policy. The trial court granted summary judgment, and finding no error, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "Mills v. AAA Northern CA, NV and Utah Ins. Exch." on Justia Law

David and Alana Folsom filed a complaint against Eagle’s Rest, LLC and the City of Livingston claiming breach of contract, negligence, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit. After a jury trial, the district court entered judgment specifying that plaintiffs recovered nothing from Eagle’s Rest but awarding damages as to Livingston. The court also awarded attorney fees to the Folsoms as the prevailing party. The Folsoms appealed, and Livingston cross-appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding that the district court (1) did not err by excluding expert testimony of a professional appraiser; (2) did not err in excluding David Folsom’s expert testimony at trial; (3) properly instructed the jury regarding unjust enrichment; (4) erred by awarding negligence damages to the Folsoms; and (5) abused its discretion by awarding essentially all of the attorney fees incurred by the Folsoms. View "Folsom v. Livingston" on Justia Law

Sean Melton purchased four parcels of property from Len Wallace. Lee Foss represented Wallace. The parties contractually agreed that Melton would pay Foss $112,000 in commission. Foss later filed suit against Melton for the unpaid balance of the commission. Melton moved for summary judgment, arguing that Foss had not exhausted his available remedies pursuant to the “exhaustion of remedies” clause in the contract. Foss also moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Foss and awarded attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding that the district court (1) erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Foss because, while Foss did not fail to exhaust available remedies, it was inappropriate for the court to decide certain factual questions on summary judgment; and (2) erred in awarding attorney’s fees to Foss. View "Foss v. Melton" on Justia Law

The Michigan office of Alix, an international company, administers payroll and benefits for U.S. employees and is directly involved in U.S. hiring. In 2013, Alix hired Brewington, a Texas resident, for its Dallas Corporate Services team. The employment agreement provides that it “will be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Michigan” and states, “any dispute arising out of or in connection with any aspect of this Agreement and/or any termination of employment . . ., shall be exclusively subject to binding arbitration under the . . . American Arbitration Association . . . decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding as to both parties.” In 2014, Brewington was terminated. He filed a demand for arbitration, asserting claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, on behalf of himself and a purported nationwide class of current, former, and potential Alix employees. The Michigan district court ruled that Brewington was precluded from pursuing arbitration claims on behalf of any purported class. The Sixth Circuit affirmed that court’s refusal to dismiss, finding that Brewington had sufficient contacts with Michigan to establish personal jurisdiction, and upheld summary judgment in favor of Alix. An agreement must expressly include the possibility of classwide arbitration to indicate that the parties agreed to it. This clause is silent on the issue and is limited to claims concerning “this Agreement,” as opposed to other agreements. It refers to “both parties.” View "AlixPartners, LLP v. Brewington" on Justia Law

The principal issue in this appeal is whether the district court correctly determined the measure of compensation due to Noteholders, represented by BNY Melon, arising from the underpayment to the Noteholders by Chesapeake in connection with Chesapeake's early redemption of the Notes. The court concluded, substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court's thorough opinion, that the district court correctly determined the measure of compensation due to the Noteholders in the circumstances presented. In this case, applying New York law, Section 1.7 of the Supplemental Indenture - a contract Chesapeake does not contend was invalid or unenforceable - dictates the Noteholders’ recovery arising from Chesapeake’s underpayment for its May 13, 2013 redemption. Because Chesapeake completed its redemption on May 13, 2013, it owed the Noteholders the Make‐Whole Price for that redemption, pursuant to Section 1.7(c), and it breached the Supplemental Indenture by paying only the At‐Par Price. The court agreed with the district court that the correct damages award was the difference between the At‐Par Price and the Make‐Whole Price, plus prejudgment interest. To hold otherwise would frustrate the Noteholders’ legitimate expectations regarding their rights under the Supplemental Indenture. Furthermore, Chesapeake was similarly on notice at all relevant times that the district court could require it to pay the Make‐Whole Price for its May 13, 2013 redemption. Finally, the court rejected Chesapeake’s contention that, even if the district court properly awarded breach‐of‐contract damages, it erred by awarding compensation that allowed the Noteholders to recoup in excess of the value of the Notes before the redemption. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Chesapeake Energy v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust" on Justia Law

The district court found third-party plaintiff Qwest failed to prove its claims for intentional interference with a business relationship, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment against third-party defendant FC. The court agreed with the district court that FC did not act with an improper purpose when it contracted with Sancom, a local exchange carrier (LEC), because FC was simply attempting to take advantage of the uncertain regulatory scheme at the time; FC had a legitimate argument that it could be considered an “end user,” and thus Sancom could bill Qwest under its tariff for calls delivered to FC’s call bridges; and thus the district court did not err in finding for FC on Qwest's claim for intentional interference with a business relationship. The court predicted that the South Dakota Supreme Court would not recognize a tort of unfair competition under these circumstances, and found that the district court properly rejected this new tort. The court concluded, however, that the district court incorrectly found FC’s conduct was “neither illegal nor inequitable” because it was simply taking advantage of a loophole until the loophole closed, and the district court improperly considered Sancom’s settlement payments to Qwest when it found FC was not unjustly enriched. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded for reconsideration of whether FC was unjustly enriched. View "Qwest v. Free Conferencing Corp." on Justia Law

The State and the City of Pass Christian’s entered into a forty-year lease. Under the terms of the lease, the City would use a portion of the Harrison County shoreline as a harbor and pursue related commercial development. Russell RP Services, LLC, filed its complaint against the State and the City on November 21, 2013. Russell RP asserted that it held an undivided one-half interest in a parcel of land lying between U.S. 90 and the Gulf of Mexico shoreline, and that the City and State, by executing the aforementioned lease, had effectuated a taking upon its property which required just due compensation. On August 18, 2015, the Harrison County Circuit Court granted the State and City's motions for summary judgment. Concluding that Russell Real Property lacked standing to pursue its claim of inverse condemnation, the circuit court dismissed without prejudice its claim of inverse condemnation. Russell RP appealed, but finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Russell Real Property Services, LLC v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Jason Thornock requested that PacifiCorp provide electric service to an irrigation pivot on his property using a particular easement. PacifiCorp did not utilize the easement that Thornock suggested but did provide electric service to the pivot using a different route under the terms of a second contract the parties entered into after the original contract. When PacifiCorp did not provide power under the easement provided for in the first contract, Thornock filed a complaint against PacifiCorp based on the alleged breach of the first contract. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of PacifiCorp. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the first contract between the parties had been superseded and that PacifiCorp was not required to perform under the provisions of that agreement. View "Thornock v. PacifiCorp" on Justia Law