Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Lakeview Reserve Homeowners Association filed an action against Maronda Homes, Inc. for breach of the implied warranties of fitness and merchantability (referred to as the implied warranty of habitability in the residential construction context) arising from alleged defects in the development and construction of a residential subdivision that Maronda Homes developed. Maronda Homes filed a third-party complaint against T.D. Thomson Construction Company for indemnification based on the alleged violation of the implied warranties. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Maronda Homes and T.D. Thompson on the basis that the common law implied warranties of fitness and merchantability do not extend to the construction and design of the infrastructure, private roadways, drainage systems or other common areas in a residential subdivision because those structures do not immediately support the residences. The court of appeal reversed, holding that the common law warranty of habitability was applicable in this case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the implied warranties of fitness and merchantability applied to the improvements that provided essential services to the homeowners association. Remanded. View "T.D. Thomson Constr. Co. v. Lakeview Reserve Homeowners Ass'n, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioners had a homeowners' insurance policy with Respondent that covered Petitioners' dwelling. The policy stated that any covered loss would be paid based on actual cash value, rather than replacement value, but the policy did not define the term "actual cash value." After Petitioners' dwelling was damaged by a tornado, Respondent valued Petitioners' loss at $48,647 after calculating the repair costs and the depreciation of the items requiring repair. Petitioners brought a class action in federal district court against Respondent, alleging that Respondent breached the insurance policy, and those policies of the putative class members, when it improperly applied a depreciation factor to the labor portion of repairs required at their respective dwellings. Specifically, Petitioners contend that their policy's failure to address depreciation of labor rendered the policy's term "actual cash value" ambiguous. The federal district court certified a question of law to the Supreme Court, which answered by holding that an insurer, in determining the "actual cash value" of a covered loss under an indemnity insurance policy, may not depreciate the costs of labor when the term "actual cash value" is not defined in the policy. View "Adams v. Cameron Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Farmers and American, insurance companies, for breach of contract and various state law violations, seeking recovery for additional loss. The court concluded that plaintiffs' claims for specific performance, unjust enrichment, and bad faith were expressly preempted by federal law; the court affirmed the district court's grant of Farmers' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' extracontractual claims because they were preempted under federal law; and the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Farmers on the ground that plaintiffs failed to file a supplemental proof of loss, a strictly construed requirement, and thus did not satisfy the prerequisites for suing on their additional claims, rejecting plaintiffs' estoppel, duress, repudiation, and due process arguments. Further, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for American, concluding that the American policy was supplemental and plaintiffs could not recover from American for flood damage because they had not exhausted their primary policy with Farmers. View "Gunter, et al. v. Farmers Ins. Co., et al." on Justia Law

Under the Workforce Investment Act, 29 U.S.C. 2887(a)(2)(A), the Department of Labor administers the Job Corps program, providing education, training, and support services to help at-risk youth obtain employment. There are 125 Job Corps Centers, including Blue Ridge in Marion, Virginia, which Res-Care has operated since 1998. In 2011, DOL published a Request for Information from potential bidders on an upcoming procurement for the operation of Blue Ridge. Res-Care’s contract was to expire in 2013. The Request encouraged firms that qualify as small businesses to respond with a “capabilities statement.” One large and four small businesses submitted statements. Res-Care, a large business, did not submit. The contracting officer found that, based on the responses, DOL would likely receive bids from at least two responsible small businesses at fair market prices, as required by the Federal Acquisition Regulation, 38 C.F.R. 19.502-2(b), and recommended conducting the selection as a small business set-aside. DOL issued a presolicitation notice indicating that the next Blue Ridge contract, with a value of $25 million, would be solicited as a “100% Set-Aside for Small Business.” Res-Care filed a bid protest alleging that DOL violated WIA by setting aside the Blue Ridge contract for small businesses, based on the “competitive basis” provision in section 2887. The Claims Court and Federal Circuit upheld the DOL determination.View "Res-Care, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Johnson Controls, Inc. contracted with a school district (the District) to provide design services. Johnson then subcontracted with Architectural Resources, Inc. Marshall Helmberger subsequently submitted a request to Johnson under the Data Practices Act for a copy of the subcontract. Johnson denied the request and withheld the contract. Thereafter, Helmberger filed a complaint with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). An administrative law judge (ALJ) dismissed the complaint after a hearing, concluding that Helmberger did not establish that Johnson was performing a governmental function for the District within the meaning of Minn. Stat. 13.05(11)(a). The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Johnson was not obligated to disclose the subcontract under the Act because the subcontract was not public data under section 13.05(11)(a). View "Helmberger v. Johnson Controls, Inc." on Justia Law

Apex, a manufacturer of electronics, and Sears entered into an agreement in 2003. In 2004, Sears implemented a program to create a return reserve on Apex’s account. The return reserve was an internal accounting mechanism used to place a negative dollar deduction on Apex’s account; Sears would hold back payment to Apex until the amount showing owed by Sears exceeded the amount of the reserve. In 2009 Apex filed suit, alleging that Sears breached the contract by refusing to pay $8,185,302 owed for goods delivered. The district court granted Sears summary judgment, finding that the action was barred by the four-year statute of limitations in Section 2–725 of the Uniform Commercial Code. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Apex was on notice that Sears was not going to pay the deductions after each invoice and even marked these “wrongful” deductions in its own Invoice Report. For more than four years, Apex sat on its right to sue. View "Apex Digital, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co." on Justia Law

When Defendant purchased a distributorship from Plaintiff, he gave Plaintiff a down payment to be applied to the full purchase price of the distributorship but took over operation of the distributorship without paying Plaintiff the remaining balance. Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The district court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff, finding that Defendant had been unjustly enriched by the transaction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in finding that Defendant agreed to buy the distributorship for $130,000; (2) did not err in finding that Defendant was unjustly enriched; (3) applied the proper measure of damages in awarding Plaintiff $81,325 plus costs for his unjust enrichment claim; (4) did not err in dismissing Defendant's counter-claims; and (5) did not err in determining the amount by which Defendant was unjustly enriched. View "Owen v. Skramovsky" on Justia Law

After John and Anne had been married almost twenty years, John filed a complaint for divorce. Three years later, the parties indicated that they had reached a settlement, which obligated John to provide health insurance for Anne until she reached sixty-five years of age, with a Medicare supplement thereafter. The parties' agreement was read into the record and approved by the trial justice, who ordered it incorporated but not merged into the final divorce decree. However, the parties never executed a written agreement. John later challenged the validity of the marital settlement agreement after Anne moved to enforce the provisions of the agreement respecting John's obligation to pay for health insurance. The family court found that the parties clearly agreed that John was to cover Anne with her health insurance and ordered John to obtain and maintain the health insurance pursuant to the agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the agreement was sufficient to form a nonmodifiable marital settlement agreement, and therefore, John was bound by its terms. View "O'Donnell v. O'Donnell" on Justia Law

This case involved a dispute between two developers over the payment of property assessments allegedly due under certain restrictive covenants. The plaintiff-below, The Reserves Management, LLC appealed two Superior Court rulings that granted summary judgment to defendants R.T. Properties, LLC, Mountain Range, LLC, Fountain, LLC, Waterscape, LLC, and Wind Chop, LLC. In April 2005, Reserves Development LLC, together with The Reserves Development Corporation, entered into a contract to sell seventeen lots to R.T. Properties, LLC. The Sale Agreement recited that R.T. Properties was “acquiring the Property in order to construct homes thereon for sale to the general public.” In November 2005, R.T. Properties transferred all seventeen lots to four affiliated entities—Mountain Range, LLC, Fountain, LLC, Waterscape, LLC, and Wind Chop, LLC. Three years later, the declaration of the sales contract was amended that obligated each lot owner to pay approximately $4,000 to Reserves. In September 2010, Reserves filed an action in the Superior Court against R.T. Properties to enforce the payment of the assessments allegedly due. R.T. Properties moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming that under the Sale Agreement, the payment of assessments for each lot was to be deferred until the lot was transferred to a third party homebuyer and a certificate of occupancy was issued. The Superior Court denied the motion to dismiss, but ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of R.T. Properties with respect to all claimed assessments, except for a sewer connection assessments. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of R.T. Properties on a forbearance agreement defense, because material facts were in dispute. The Court affirmed the trial court in all other respects. View "The Reserves Management Corporation, et al. v. R.T. Properties, LLC, et al." on Justia Law

McLane filed suit to recover certain debts owed by Table Rock for goods and services provided by McLane. McLane also sought to recover debts from Scot Wederquist, owner of a 40% interest in and treasurer of Table Rock, by virtue of a guaranty agreement. On appeal, McLane challenged the district court's holding that Wederquist was not personally liable under the guarantee agreement. The court concluded that the guaranty only secured credit extended by PFS to its affiliates. Because McLane was not an affiliate of PFS, the Table Rock Debts were not secured by the guaranty. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "McLane Foodservice Inc. v. Table Rock Restaurants, L.L.C., et al" on Justia Law