Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

At issue in this appeal was the interpretation of a clause concerning the allocation of real estate taxes contained in a written lease between Inland American Retail Management and Cinemaworld of Florida. Inland and Cinemaworld were successors-in-interest to a ground lease for the rental of what is now a movie theater in a shopping center. Under the terms of the lease, Cinemaworld incurred certain liabilities and expenses. Pursuant to a clause in the lease, Cinemaworld was required to pay an amount equal to the real estate taxes "levied, assessed, or otherwise imposed" against the movie theater. Inland filed a complaint for breach of the lease for Cinemaworld's alleged failure to make timely payments as required by the lease. The superior court granted partial summary judgment in Cinemaworld's favor with respect to its motion seeking an accounting, ruling that the formula allocating Cinemaworld's reasonable share of real estate taxes should be based on the square footage of its leased premises. Inland appealed. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the interpretation of the parties' lease. View "Inland Am. Retail Mgmt. LLC v. Cinemaworld of Fla., Inc." on Justia Law

In 1995, Elizabeth Meyer, the sole shareholder and CEO of Greensleeves, Inc., orally agreed to buy six dock slips from Philip Smiley. Smiley subsequently entered into a purchase and sale agreement with Eugene Friedrich for the sale of those same dock slips. When Smiley refuse to convey the dock slips to Greensleeves, Greensleeves filed suit against Smiley. Friedrich intervened and moved to dismiss the complaint. The superior court granted judgment in favor of Smiley and Friedrich, finding no enforceable contract between Greensleeves and Smiley. The Supreme Court vacated the superior court's judgment, holding that there was an enforceable contract between Greensleeves and Smiley. Friedrich subsequently relinquished his ownership of the dock slips and conveyed them to Greensleeves. Greensleeves then sought an accounting of the rental income that had been collected from the dock slips from the date of the originally-scheduled closing between Greensleeves through the 1999 boating season. Ultimately, the trial court concluded (1) Friedrich had tortiously interfered with the contract between Smiley and Greensleeves, and (2) Greensleeves was entitled to lost rental profits of $61,258 plus interest and costs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not commit reversible error in its findings and judgment. View "Greensleeves, Inc. v. Smiley" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's dismissal of his amended complaint, which alleged that FXDD engaged in dishonest and deceptive practices in managing its online foreign exchange trading platform in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1962(c), and New York General Business Law 349(h), and 350. Plaintiff also alleged breach of contract and of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court concluded that, at this stage, some part of the underlying transaction occurred in New York State, giving plaintiff statutory standing to sue for deceptive practices and false advertising under sections 349 and 350; because the complaint alleged that FXDD failed to act in good faith and intentionally delayed trades or caused them to fail in order to enrich itself at the expense of its customers, these practices were incompatible with a promise to execute orders on a best-efforts basis and, therefore, the court vacated the dismissal of the breach of contract claim; and the court affirmed the judgment of the district court as to the RICO claim and the claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. View "Cruz v. FXDirectDealer, LLC" on Justia Law

This diversity case involved a dispute over insurance coverage between Starr and SGS. The district court, relying on Matador Petroleum Corp. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., held that Starr did not need to show prejudice before denying coverage to SGS for late notice under the pollution buy-back provision. Bound by Matador, which concluded that a notice requirement in this type of supplemental pollution endorsement was essential to the bargained-for coverage, the court affirmed the judgment and found SGS's arguments unpersuasive. View "Starr Indemnity & Liablity Co. v. SGS Petroleum Serv. Corp." on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of an allision between a vessel owned by Settoon and an oil well. On appeal, Settoon challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the umbrella insurers. The court concluded that the umbrella insurers were not liable for damages resulting from the allision because Settoon failed to provide them notice within 30 days; SNIC was liable to Settoon because delayed delivery prevented SNIC from relying on the exclusions in the policy and the conditions precedent of the exceptions to the exclusions; and prejudgment interest should be calculated from the date Settoon paid for the allision. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for calculation of prejudgment interest and affirmed the district court's judgment in all other respects. View "In Re: Settoon Towing, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a janitorial cleaning services franchisee, along with franchisees from other states, filed a putative class action in the U.S. district court against Defendant, the Massachusetts corporation that franchised Plaintiff's business, alleging that Defendant misclassified him as an independent contractor and committed various wage law violations. The district court certified several questions of law to the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which answered by holding (1) a plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 150 by filing a complaint with the attorney general does not deprive a court of jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff's claims under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, 148, 148B, 150, and 151(1) and (1a); (2) a franchisor is vicariously liable for the conduct of its franchisee only where the franchisor controls or has a right to control the specific policy or practice resulting in harm to the franchisee; and (3) a defendant may be liable for employee misclassification where there was no contract for service between the plaintiff and the defendant. View "Depianti v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

This suit stemmed from plaintiff's suit for breach of contract against his former employer, ICD, and tortious interference with contract against ICD's president. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's order, which amended a judgment to provide that plaintiff was entitled to post-judgment interest at the rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1961, contending that he was entitled to a post-judgment interest at the rate set forth in C.P.L.R. 5004. The court concluded that plaintiff was entitled to .25% post-judgment interest where section 1961's plain terms governed the rate of post-judgment interest applicable in this case. Accordingly, the district court correctly and constitutionally applied section 1961, notwithstanding that the judgment had been entered in a diversity action and had been docketed by plaintiff in a New York state court. View "Cappiello v. ICD Publ'ns, Inc." on Justia Law

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia certified two questions to the Georgia Supreme Court. The questions related to the Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford Connecticut's umbrella policy issued to Louis and Betty Wilson. At the time, Georgia law required policies to have uninsured motorist coverage unless the insured rejected that coverage in writing. The Wilsons did not reject uninsured motorist coverage; their policy excluded such coverage despite being required by law. Because it was not written into the policy but required, it was implied by operation of law. In 2010, Louis Wilson was seriously injured in an accident, and gave notice of a claim for uninsured motorist benefits. The insurance company denied the claim, contending that a 2008 amendment to the Georgia law specifically excluded umbrella policies from mandatory uninsured motorist coverage. The questions from the federal court centered on whether the amendment to the applicable Georgia law applied to the Wilson's umbrella policy after 2009, and whether the notice requirements of the amended law applied to umbrella policies. After review, the Georgia Court concluded that the amendment in question here did not apply to the Wilson's umbrella policy, nor did the notice requirement. View "Wilson v. Automobile Insurance Co. of Hartford, Connecticut" on Justia Law

Petitioner here was Gaddy Engineering Company, and Respondents were an individual lawyer, Thomas Lane, and a law firm in which Lane was a partner (Bowles Rice). Petitioner contended that the Lane agreed to pay Petitioner one-third of all sums Bowles Rice received in connection with its legal representation of a group of land companies in a case to be filed against a company for alleged underpayment of gas royalties. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Respondents as to all claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding, inter alia, that the trial court (1) correctly applied the doctrine of impracticability as to Petitioner's breach of contract claims; (2) did not err in ruling that no attorney-client relationship existed between Petitioner and Respondents, and thus the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on Petitioner's professional negligence claim; (3) correctly granted summary judgment on Petitioner's claim of fraud; and (4) did not err in granting summary judgment on Petitioner's claim seeking relief in quantum meruit. View "Gaddy Eng'g Co. v. Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love, LLP" on Justia Law

Braunger Foods sold food product supplies to Hungry's North, a business owned by Michael Sears. Braunger Foods filed this action against Sears and Hungry's (collectively Hungry's), seeking to recover amounts Braunger Foods claimed were due for sales it had made on credit to Hungry's. The district court (1) entered judgment against Hungry's for amounts it concluded were owing to Braunger Foods; and (2) entered no judgment against Sears, concluding that a guaranty, by which Braunger Foods sought to hold Sears personally liable for the debt, was ineffective. Braunger Foods appealed the trial court's conclusion that the guaranty was unenforceable against Sears. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the guaranty was enforceable against Sears. Remanded with directions to enter judgment against Sears. View "Braunger Foods, LLC v. Sears" on Justia Law