Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Eaton manufactures truck transmissions for sale to Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), which offer “data books,” listing the options for truck parts. Customer choose among the options; the OEM sources the parts from the manufacturers and uses them to build custom trucks then sold to that customer. Eaton was a near-monopolist in supplying Class 8 truck transmissions. In 1989, ZF emerged as a competitor. Eaton allegedly sought to retain its market share by entering agreements with the OEMs, with increasingly large rebates on Eaton transmissions based on the percentage of transmissions a given OEM purchased from Eaton as opposed to ZF. ZF closed in 2003. In 2006, ZF successfully sued Eaton for antitrust violations. Separately, indirect purchasers who bought trucks from OEMs’ immediate customers brought a class action; that case was dismissed. In this case, Tauro attempt to represent direct purchasers in an antitrust suit was rejected because Tauro never directly purchased a Class 8 truck from the OEMs, but rather purchased trucks from R&R, a direct customer that expressly assigned Tauro its direct purchaser antitrust claims. The Third Circuit reversed. An antitrust claim assignment need not be supported by bargained-for consideration in order to confer direct purchaser standing on an indirect purchaser; it need only be express. That requirement was met. The presumption that a motion to intervene by a proposed class representative is timely if filed before the class opt-out date applies in this pre-certification context. View "Wallach v. Eaton Corp" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are trust funds and employee benefit plans for construction industry employees. MRS constructs commercial buildings. In 1997, MRS signed “me-too agreements” binding it to collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) bestowing rights on Plaintiffs. Under the agreement, MRS agreed to be bound by the 1997-2001 CBA in force between a multiemployer association and the union. According to Plaintiffs, MRS also agreed to be bound by later CBAs because the 1997 agreement contains an “evergreen clause” and MRS never gave the notice required to terminate the clause. MRS conceded that it never gave notice, but denied that the letter continuously granted bargaining rights. Under each CBA, employers had to make specified contributions to various Plaintiff funds and permit audits of records relevant to those obligations. Plaintiffs sent MRS requests for audits, believing that MRS had failed to make contributions required by the 2012-2015 CBA. When MRS did not comply, Plaintiffs sought post-audit relief under 29 U.S.C. 1145 for unpaid ERISA contributions and injunctive relief compelling MRS to comply with the 2012-2015 and subsequent CBAs. The Third Circuit reversed dismissal, rejecting an argument that all me-too agreements must satisfy two criteria in order to bind non-signatories to future CBAs. Absent that requirement, the plausibility of the complaint should be assessed under contract law principles and states a plausible claim for relief. View "Carpenters Health & Welfare Fund v. Mgmt. Res. Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

Kenneth and Sally Eyer and Idaho Forest Group, LLC (IFG) entered into a Log Purchase Agreement in which IFG agreed to purchase timber harvested from the Eyers’ land. Before logging, IFG sent an agent to the Eyers’ property to assist them in locating property lines. When the logging occurred, the loggers mistakenly cut timber located on neighboring land. The neighbors sued the Eyers for timber trespass and the Eyers brought a third-party action against IFG for breach of an assumed duty to properly mark the property lines. A jury found in favor of IFG, finding that IFG had not assumed a duty to the Eyers. The district court then awarded IFG $95,608 in attorney fees. On appeal, the Eyers argued the district court erred in awarding fees under Idaho Code section 12-120(3), contending: (1) the gravamen of the Eyers’ complaint was not a commercial transaction; and (2) the Eyers did not sell timber for a “commercial purpose” since they used the proceeds of the sale to pay medical bills. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Eyer v. Idaho Forest Group" on Justia Law

Viking Pump, Inc. and Warren Pumps, LLC sought to recover under insurance policies issued to a third company, Houdaille Industries, Inc. In the 1980's, Viking and Warren acquired pump manufacturing businesses from Houdaille. As a result, Viking and Warren were confronted with potential liability flowing from personal injury claims made by plaintiffs alleging damages in connection with asbestos exposure claims dating back to when the pump manufacturing businesses were owned by Houdaille. Houdaille had purchased occurrence-based primary and umbrella insurance from Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. Above the Liberty umbrella layer, Houdaille purchased layers of excess insurance. In total, Houdaille purchased 35 excess policies through 20 different carriers (the "Excess Policies"). Viking and Warren sought to fund the liabilities arising from the Houdaille-Era Claims using the comprehensive insurance program originally purchased by Houdaille. The insurance companies that issued the Excess Policies (the "Excess Insurers") contended that Viking and Warren were not entitled to use the Excess Policies to respond to the claims. The Excess Insurers also disputed the extent of any coverage available, particularly with respect to defense costs. The Supreme Court held, after careful consideration of the policies at issue: (1) the Superior Court correctly held that the 1980-1985 Liberty Primary Policies were exhausted; (2) the Superior Court held that 33 of the Excess Policies at issue in this appeal provided coverage to Viking and Warren for their defense costs, with many payments contingent on insurer consent; (3) the Court of Chancery correctly held that there were valid assignments of insurance rights to Warren and Viking under the Excess Policies; (4) the Superior Court was affirmed in part and reversed in part with respect to its determination of the Excess Policies' coverage for defense costs; and (5) the Superior Court erred with respect to the trigger of coverage under the Excess Policies. View "In Re Viking Pump, Inc. and Warren Pumps, LLC Insurance Appeals" on Justia Law

Nutt was hit and killed by a U.S. Army soldier driving an Army truck in 1983. His family filed a claim under 28 U.S.C. 2674, the Federal Tort Claims Act. A 1985 Agreement provided that the government “agrees to purchase annuities which will pay:” $60,000 per year to Cynthia; lump-sum payments on specified anniversaries to Cynthia; lump-sum payments on specified anniversaries to James; plus $240,000 to Cynthia and a payment to the Nutts’ attorneys. The Agreement provided that “[t]he payments by the United States set forth above shall operate as full and complete discharge of all payments to be made to and of all claims which might be asserted.” The government purchased a structured annuity ELNY. ELNY went into receivership in 1991. In 2011, the New York State Liquidation Bureau informed the Nutts that their benefit payments would be reduced. In 2013, they began receiving payments reduced to approximately 45% of their expected benefits. They were informed that, as of 2015, they would not be receiving the anniversary payments. The Nutts alleged breach of the agreement. The Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal, finding that the government “was not obligated to guarantee or insure that annuity; its obligation ended at the initial purchase of the ELNY annuity.” View "Nutt v. United States" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review arose from a deficiency action brought by appellant SunTrust Bank (“SunTrust”) as the assignee under a motor vehicle conditional sales contract following its repossession and sale of a motor vehicle purchased by appellee Mattie Venable. Specifically, the issue was which statute of limitations applied here: the four-year statute of limitation set forth in OCGA 11-2-725 (1) applicable to actions on contracts for the sale of goods, or the six-year statute of limitation found in OCGA 9-3-24, generally applicable to actions on simple written contracts. After review, the Court concluded that this action was subject to the four-year statute of limitation found in 11-2-725 (1). View "SunTrust Bank v. Venable" on Justia Law

Plaintiff entered an original song and music video to a variety of companies affiliated with Sony Music Entertainment (Sony) as part of a songwriting contest sponsored by Sony. Plaintiff later sued Sony alleging contract and intellectual property claims. The district court entered an order compelling arbitration and dismissed Plaintiff’s case with prejudice, concluding that the claims were subject to mandatory arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act and that Plaintiff failed to make a cognizable claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the district court erred in ruling that he failed to allege sufficient facts to support his claims. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that because the district court’s rulings that Plaintiff’s claims were subject to mandatory arbitration provided an independent basis for dismissing his claims, the Court did not need to address Plaintiff’s challenge to the district court’s decision to dismiss his complaint on factual sufficiency grounds. View "Cortes-Ramos v. Sony Corp. of America" on Justia Law

In 1963, USPS and Bellevue’s predecessor-in-interest entered into a twenty-year initial lease with five options to renew the lease and an option to purchase certain property. When USPS attempted to exercise the purchase option, Bellevue refused to honor it. The district court granted summary judgment for USPS and ordered specific performance of the sale of the property. The court applied Washington’s heightened evidentiary standard for specific performance and held that USPS has shown clearly and unequivocally that it has a contractual right to purchase the property. Even under Washington law’s high standard for awarding specific performance, USPS successfully provided “clear and unequivocal evidence” that it exercised its options to extend the term of the lease in strict compliance with the terms of the lease, and that the lease therefore continued to exist through the time it also properly exercised its purchase option. Finally, the court agreed with the district court that the 1963 lease remained valid. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court’s order granting summary judgment to USPS and compelling specific performance for the sale of the property. View "USPS v. Bellevue Post Office" on Justia Law

Stafford and Woodruff Smith (Woody) were brothers. Their father established Smith Chevrolet, and over the years the brothers have co-owned several auto dealerships, other businesses, and parcels of real property. The brothers each owned 50% of Staffwood, an entity that owned properties and other assets. In 2010, a dispute arose between the brothers involving their business dealings, and in 2010, the brothers entered into a settlement agreement (the 2010 Agreement) that gave ownership of Smith Chevrolet to Stafford. The 2010 Agreement also identified four parcels of land that either brother could purchase through a bid process. Between 2010 and 2012, various transactions occurred between Smith Chevrolet, Woody, Stafford, and Staffwood which culminated in another dispute between the brothers and another settlement agreement (the 2012 Agreement). The 2012 Agreement provided that each brother had the right to initiate a bid process to purchase the properties owned by Staffwood. In 2013, Woody sent a letter to the management of Staffwood in which he asserted that he had won the bidding process and asked Stafford to clear the title to the Smith Chevrolet Property. Woody appealed the district court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings and award of attorney fees to Stafford in his subsequent suit seeking specific performance of his winning bid. Finding no reversible error in the district court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Smith v. Smith" on Justia Law

In 2011, Medical Recovery Services, LLC (“the Collection Agency”), filed this action against defendants Allison and Nathan Olsen to recover on two entities’ unpaid medical bills. In 2012, the parties stipulated that the Collection Agency could recover a judgment against defendants and that it would forbear executing on the judgment if the defendants paid $100 per month between the 25th and 30th of each month until the judgment was paid. The court entered a judgment providing that the Collection Agency could recover from the Defendants the sum of $4,973.46. Defendants failed to make any payment on the judgment, and the Collection Agency attempted to execute on the judgment. The Collection Agency sought to execute on defendants’ bank account, but the account had been closed. The Collection Agency then sought a continuing garnishment to obtain Mr. Olsen’s disposable earnings from Petersen, Moss, Hall & Olsen, but that garnishment was returned unsatisfied because “Defendant is a partner in the firm, not an employee.” The Collection Agency also sought to execute on Mr. Olsen’s partnership interest, but the writ was returned unsatisfied because Mr. Olsen’s equity in the partnership was stated to be zero. The Collection Agency then sought to depose Stephen Hall, the partner in the law firm who had signed the responses to the writs of garnishment. The Collection Agency agreed to forgo taking his deposition if Hall would make $250 bi-monthly payments until the judgment was paid in full. Hall made those payments, but the Collection Agency would not accept final payment endorsed "payment in full" because it wanted to seek post-judgment attorney fees. Defendants filed a motion seeking to compel the Collection Agency to record a satisfaction of judgment in every county in which it had recorded the original judgment. The Agency responded by filing for an award of post-judgment fees it incurred trying to collect on its judgment. The Agency's motion was denied, and the Agency estopped from further collection of fees, citing the agreement reached in satisfying the judgment. The district court upheld the magistrate court's judgment. Finding that Hall only agreed to satisfy the judgment, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in affirming the magistrate. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Medical Recovery Svcs. v. Olsen" on Justia Law