Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed a breach of contract claim against Zenith after Santana Morales, Jr. was crushed to death by a palm tree while working as a landscaper for Lawns. The Florida Supreme Court answered the following certified questions in the affirmative: (1) Does the estate have standing to bring its breach of contract claim against Zenith under the employer liability policy? (2) If so, does the provision in the employer liability policy which excludes from coverage "any obligation imposed by workers' compensation... law" operate to exclude coverage of the estate's claim against Zenith for the tort judgment? and (3) If the estate's claim is not barred by the workers' compensation exclusion, does the release in the workers' compensation settlement agreement otherwise prohibit the estate's collection of the tort judgment? The court concluded that, given the Florida Supreme Court's resolution of the certified issues, the district court correctly determined that the workers' compensation exclusion in Part II of the policy barred Zenith's coverage of the tort judgment against Lawns. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Zenith. View "Morales v. Zenith Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff offered to sell 3 million pounds of scrap copper to the defendant. The defendant negotiated the core terms of the sale but did not object to a fee-shifting provision: “In the event purchaser shall default in his obligations hereunder, purchaser shall be liable for [the plaintiff]’s costs of collection, including attorney’s fees.” The contract was negotiated between two experienced and sophisticated commercial entities. There was no duress. In a suit between the two, the otherwise victorious plaintiff appealed the district court’s ruling that the unilateral fee-shifting clause for attorney’s fees was unenforceable under Ohio law as a matter of public policy. The district court relied on Sixth Circuit precedent, holding that the Ohio Supreme Court would not enforce similar fee-shifting clauses. The Sixth Circuit reversed, noting that the Ohio Supreme Court has since clarified that it would enforce such unilateral or one-sided fee-shifting contract provisions. View "Allied Indus. Scrap, Inc. v. OmniSource Corp." on Justia Law

Cross-defendant Michael Tope appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of First American Title Insurance Company in a cross-action to recover money under a title insurance policy after default on a real estate loan to purchase and rehabilitate a home. The property was subject to a notice of abatement action issued by San Joaquin County requiring repair of defects in the rehabilitation of the residence. The subject of the suit was that First American allegedly breached the title insurance policy by failing to provide coverage for the notice of abatement action. Plaintiffs, investors in a real estate loan, sued defendants and cross-complainants Stockton Mortgage Real Estate Loan Servicing Corporation (SMRELS), Stockton Mortgage, Inc., Stockton Management & Development, Inc., and Ross Cardinalli Jr. (collectively cross-complainants) for damages arising from cross-complainants' alleged failure to follow up on the status of the release of a notice of abatement action. Cross-complainants, in turn, initiated this suit against First American, Alliance Title Company, and two of Alliance's employees for damages, indemnity, and declaratory relief arising out of First American's refusal to provide coverage under the title insurance policy, and Alliance's alleged representation, on behalf of First American, that it would obtain a release of the notice of abatement action prior to the close of escrow. First American moved for summary judgment mainly on grounds that the notice of abatement action was not covered under the title insurance policy, cross-complainants were not insured under the title insurance policy, and the preliminary title report relied on by cross-complainants was not a contract. The trial court granted First American's motion and entered summary judgment in its favor. Cross-complainants appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. View "Stockton Mortgage, Inc. v. Tope" on Justia Law

The parties in this case, two corporations, were parties to a Development Agreement. Defendant claimed Plaintiff owed it approximately $60 million under the Development Agreement. Plaintiff sought a declaration that it did not owe Defendant any money, and Defendant sought reformation of the Development Agreement. After two years of discovery, and as the trial approached, the parties filed a Joint Pretrial Stipulation and Proposed Order (the Proposed Order) identifying fifteen facts as admitted and not requiring proof at trial (the Admitted Facts). Plaintiff moved to have the Court of Chancery declare that certain facts were Admitted Facts and to require Defendant to meet and confer in good faith about additional Admitted Facts. The Court granted the motion, holding (1) facts Defendant admitted in its answer, in its responses to requests for admissions, and drawn from its sworn interrogatory responses constituted Admitted Facts, and Defendant should not have objected to their inclusion in the Proposed Order; and (2) Defendant did not confer in good faith regarding Admitted Facts as required by Ch. Ct. R. 16. View "Itron, Inc. v. Consert, Inc." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from a dispute between Citigroup and ADIA regarding an Investment Agreement under which ADIA invested billions of dollars in Citigroup. At issue is the arbitration clause contained in the Agreement. The court held that the extraordinary remedies authorized by the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651(a), cannot be used to enjoin an arbitration based on whatever claim-preclusive effect may result from the district court's prior judgment when that judgment merely confirmed the result of the parties' earlier arbitration without considering the merits of the underlying claims at issue in that arbitration. Because Citigroup has not demonstrated an adequate basis for an extraordinary injunction under the Act, the court affirmed the judgment dismissing Citigroup's complaint and compelling arbitration. View "Citigroup, Inc. v. Abu Dhabi Investment Auth." on Justia Law

Higbie, a Criminal Investigator for the U.S. State Department, contacted equal employment opportunity (EEO) counsel to complain of alleged reprisal by the Department for his activities, which he claimed were protected under the Civil Rights Act. Higbie successfully requested that his complaint be processed through the Department’s alternative dispute resolution program. Higbie repeatedly inquired whether the mediation proceedings would be confidential. State Department representatives confirmed that they would be. Higbie’s supervisors, including Cotter and Thomas, signed the mediation agreement, which included a confidentiality provision. The parties did not resolve their dispute through mediation. Cotter and Thomas provided affidavits to the EEO investigator that discussed Higbie’s statements in the mediation and cast his participation in a negative light. Higbie filed suit, claiming retaliation, discrimination, and violation of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act. The district court dismissed the ADRA claim. Amending his complaint, Higbie alleged a claim sounding in contract for breach of the confidentiality provision. The Court of Federal Claims concluded that Higbie had not established that the agreement could be fairly read to contemplate money damages, and dismissed his complaint for lack of jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Higbie v. United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner Cogswell Farm Condominium Association filed a declaratory judgment action with respect to two exclusions in insurance policies issued by respondents Tower Group, Inc. and Acadia Insurance Company. The trial court held that the two exclusions at issue precluded coverage for petitioner's underlying lawsuit against Lemery Building Company, Inc. In 2009, Cogswell sued Lemery and others, alleging negligence, breach of contract, and negligent supervision in the construction of 24 residential condominium units. Cogswell asserted that the "weather barrier" components of the units – including the water/ice shield, flashing, siding, and vapor barrier – were defectively constructed and resulted in damage to the units due to water leaks. Because the units were sold at different times and the policies were in effect during two different time periods, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court erred in holding that one policy exclusion served as a bar for coverage for each unit after it was sold. Furthermore, the Court found that the other exclusion was subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in granting respondents summary judgment with respect to that exclusion. The trial court was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Cogswell Farm Condominium Ass'n v. Tower Group, Inc." on Justia Law

Gordon Westergren was involved in a lawsuit regarding the purchase of highly desired property. The lawsuit went to mediation, which resulted in National Property Holdings, L.P. (NPH) agreeing to purchase the property. Separately, in exchange for Western’s agreement to settle the lawsuit, Russell Plank, the consultant for NPH, orally promised Westergren that he would receive $1 million plus an interest in the profits from NPH’s future sale of the property. Westergren subsequently signed a release stating that he agreed to relinquish all interest in the property and all claims against NPH and other listed parties in exchange for a total payment of $500,000. Westergren then filed suit, alleging, inter alia, breach of the oral contract and fraud. Defendants asserted that Westergren had released all claims by signing the release and that the oral contract was unenforceable. The jury found in Westergren’s favor on all claims, concluding that Plank fraudulently induced Westergren to sign the release. The Supreme Court held (1) Westergren’s fraudulent inducement failed as a matter of law because he had a reasonable opportunity to read the release before he signed it and elected not to do so; and (2) the oral side agreement did not satisfy the statute of frauds. View "Nat’l Prop. Holdings, L.P. v. Westergren" on Justia Law

A shopping center owner challenged provisions in its commercial lease with Ross, conditioning Ross’s obligation to open a store and pay rent on Mervyn’s operating a store in the shopping center on the lease’s commencement date and allowing Ross terminate the lease if Mervyn’s ceased operations and was not replaced by an acceptable retailer within 12 months. Mervyn’s filed for bankruptcy and closed its store. Ross took possession of the space, never opened for business, never paid rent, and terminated the lease after the 12-month cure period. The trial court found the provisions unenforceable. The jury awarded $672,100 for unpaid rent and $3.1 million in other damages. The court of appeal held that there was no procedural unconscionability. The parties were sophisticated and experienced concerning commercial leases. The rent abatement and termination provisions must be examined separately because they involve separate consequences triggered by different conditions. The determination that rent abatement constituted an unreasonable penalty was supported by findings that Ross did not anticipate it would suffer any damages from Mervyn’s not being open on the lease’s commencement date and the rent forfeited was $39,500 per month. There is no reasonable relationship between $0 of anticipated harm and forfeiture of $39,500 in rent per month. View "Grand Prospect Partners, L.P. v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc." on Justia Law

Bellingham Marine hired Major Engineering to construct a travel lift pier at the Channel Islands Harbor. Bellingham hired Moffatt, a civil engineering firm, to prepare the plans, which required that the concrete have a specific air entrainment and that the concrete, when cured, attain a specific compressive strength. Major's contract with Bellingham provided that if the concrete failed to meet the compression strength standard, that it would be removed and replaced at Major's expense. Major hired State, which submitted a concrete mix design. Moffatt, at the request of Major, reviewed and approved the design. It was not part of Moffatt's job duties. State delivered seven truck loads of wet pre-mixed concrete. After the concrete was cast, Major's testing lab took a sample that showed the concrete had inadequate compressive strength. Major demolished and rebuilt the affected portion of the pier. It sued; State filed a cross-complaint for implied equitable indemnity and contribution, alleging that Moffatt failed to use reasonable care in reviewing and approving the mix design. The court dismissed, finding that Moffatt was not in privity of contract with Major or State and that the cross-complaint was barred by the economic loss rule. The court of appeal affirmed. View "State Ready Mix Iv. Moffatt & Nichol" on Justia Law