Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, the widow of the insured, filed this action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)(B), after AUL, the insurer, refused to pay accidental death and dismemberment (AD&D) benefits. The district court affirmed the denial of benefits on the grounds that the death was not accidental because the fatal crash was an "anticipated and expected" result of driving while intoxicated. The insurance policies did not define the term "accident" despite its critical importance for determining eligibility for AD&D benefits. Because "accident" was susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, the court construed it against AUL, the drafting party, and concluded that a reasonable plan participant under similar circumstances would have understood the insurer's alcohol-related crash to be an "accident" under the policy language. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Johnson v. American United Life Ins." on Justia Law

In 2008, Donte Newsome, a university student, was the innocent victim of murder. In 2009, Newsome's mother, Angela Smith, submitted an application to the court of claims seeking reimbursement from the West Virginia Crime Victims Compensation Fund for medical expenses, funeral and burial costs, and student loans owed by Newsome at the time of his death. Smith was granted an award for medical expenses and funeral and burial costs but was denied compensation for the student loans. After a hearing, the court of claims denied Smith's request for reimbursement of her son's unpaid student loans pursuant to the West Virginia Crime Victims Compensation Act, concluding that student loans are contractual obligations that cannot be reimbursed under the Act. The Supreme Court denied Smith's petition for writ of certiorari, holding that Newsome's student loans were not subject to reimbursement under the Act because they were not loans that Newsome was unable to receive or use, in whole or in part, prior to his death. View "State ex rel. Smith v. W. Va. Crime Victims Comp. Fund" on Justia Law

Republican Valley Biofuels (RVBF) issued a confidential private placement memorandum seeking investors in a biodiesel production facility. DMK Biodiesel (DMK) and Lanoha RVBF (Lanoha) invested $600,000 and $400,000 respectively in RVBF, which was being promoted by four individuals (Promoters). Renewable Fuels Technology (Renewable Fuels) was the manager of RVBF. DMK and Lanoha entered into and executed separate subscription agreements with RVBF. DMK and Lanoha later filed a complaint against Renewable Fuels and Promoters, alleging that Defendants fraudulently induced them to invest funds in RVBF. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to take judicial notice, requesting the district court to take judicial notice of the confidential private placement memorandum for RVBF and the subscription agreements executed between RVBF and DMK and Lanoha. The district court granted the motions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the private placement memorandum and the subscription agreements were properly considered matters outside the pleading, an evidentiary hearing was required. Remanded. View "DMK Biodiesel, LLC v. McCoy" on Justia Law

Landlord and Tenant signed a lease agreement for a rental property that required Tenant to obtain a liability and renter's insurance policy at his expense. Tenants obtained a renter's protection policy of insurance. The house was later damaged by fire caused by a child using a lighter. Landlord's insurer (Insurer) paid for the loss. This subrogation action was brought against Tenants in Landlord's name. The district court dismissed the action, concluding (1) the lease provision requiring Tenant to obtain renter's insurance did not permit Landlord or Insurer to bring a subrogation action against Tenants; and (2) Tenants were coinsureds under Landlord's fire insurance policy, and Insurer could not subrogate against its coinsureds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the terms of the lease did not overcome the presumption that Tenant was coinsured under Landlord's fire insurance policy, Landlord and Insurer could not bring a subrogation action against Tenants. View "Beveridge v. Savage" on Justia Law

Kenneth Crum, who was horseback riding at the time, was struck and severely injured by a vehicle driven by Raymond Ousley. At the time, Ousley was test-driving the vehicle, an uninsured car titled to Rhonda Ward. Crum sued Ousley for personal injuries and later joined Ousley's auto liability insurer, Kentucky Farm Bureau, for no-fault benefits. Kentucky Farm and Crum settled the negligence claims against Ousley for $25,000. Later, the trial court declared by final order that Kentucky Farm was also required to pay basic reparation benefits (BRBs) to Crum for the motor vehicle accident. The trial court then entered a final order declaring coverage for Crum and ordering Kentucky Farm also to pay Crum the no-fault benefits. The court of appeals reversed, holding that Kentucky law did not allow Crum to recover and Ousley's policy excluded Crum. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a pedestrian struck by an uninsured vehicle being driven by an ininsured driver can recover no-fault benefits from the driver's insurance company; and (2) therefore, Crum was entitled to receive BRBs from Kentucky Farm. View "Samons v. Ky. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Respondent awarded Petitioner a contract to develop an affordable housing development project. The parties entered into a development services agreement (DSA) that contained a provision stating that the parties would proceed to arbitration under state law in the event of a dispute. Petitioner was subsequently terminated from the project. Respondent filed a complaint against Petitioner asserting several causes of action, including intentional misrepresentation and negligence. Petitioners counterclaimed. Petitioners later filed an arbitration motion, which the circuit granted. The intermediate court of appeals denied Petitioners' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) the order compelling arbitration in this case was sufficiently final under the collateral order doctrine to be appealable under the general civil matters appeal statute; (2) the scope of the arbitration clause contained in the DSA encompassed all claims of Respondent and counterclaims of Petitioners; and (3) the circuit court correctly granted the motion to compel alternative dispute resolution and to stay proceedings. Remanded. View "County of Hawaii v. UniDev, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2006, Trinity Investments, LLC executed and delivered to Idaho Trust National Bank (Lender) a promissory note in the principal amount of $5,625,000.00 to develop a parcel of real property and construct townhouses upon it. Trinity was to make monthly payments of accrued interest and to pay the outstanding principal, plus accrued interest, on December 8, 2007. Borrower and Lender later entered into several agreements to change the terms of the note to reduce the principal and extend the date of maturity. The note was secured by a construction deed of trust on the real property being developed. Michael R. Christian (Guarantor) executed the promissory note as a member of Borrower, and he also signed a guaranty of Borrower's indebtedness to Lender. Trinity ultimately defaulted on the loan, and Lender brought a lawsuit against it to recover on the promissory note. During that proceeding, they stipulated to have a receiver appointed to market and sell the real property that was the collateral for the note. The receiver was authorized to sell the townhouse units for 80% of their appraised value without court approval. Guarantor signed the stipulation appointing the receiver as attorney in fact for Trinity. By June 2011, the receiver had sold all of the remaining properties. Those sales did not generate sufficient funds to pay the sums owing on the note. In 2011, the Lender brought this action to recover from Guarantor the balance owing by Borrower on the note. The district court granted Lender's motion for summary judgment and denied Trinity's motion for reconsideration. The Guarantor timely appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding that there under the definition written in the parties' contract, '[i]ndebtedness' include[d], without limitation, loans, advances, debts, . . . and liabilities of Borrower . . . whether: . . . barred or unenforceable against Borrower for any reason whatsoever." View "Idaho Trust Bank v. Christian" on Justia Law

Exact developed business software. Infocon began distributing Exact’s software in 1998. A conflict arose when Exact allegedly abandoned a scheduled upgrade, leaving distributors like Infocon out to dry, and Infocon allegedly failed to remit fees. Exact sued Infocon in 2003. According to the district court, Exact showed “persistent noncompliance with… ever more stringent” discovery orders. When Infocon moved for a default judgment, Exact fired its lawyer, hired new counsel and entered settlement negotiations. . On the eve of settlement, Infocon fired its lawyer, DeMoisey. DeMoisey placed a charging lien on the settlement proceeds. Exact delivered the $4 million settlement to the district court, which distributed most of it to Infocon and placed the remaining $1.2 million in escrow pending resolution of the fee dispute. Nine months later, Infocon sued DeMoisey in Kentucky state court for malpractice. After a summary judgment ruling in favor of the lawyer, the district court held a bench trial and awarded DeMoisey $1.4 million in quantum meruit relief. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the amount was too high, that Infocon had a right to a jury trial and, for the first time on appeal, that the district court lacked jurisdiction because DeMoisey and Infocon are both from Kentucky. View "Exact Software N. Am., Inc. v. Infocon Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

USI sued defendants for five million dollars, claiming misappropriation of funds held in escrow. USI also sought relief under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act of Canada (similar to a reorganization bankruptcy). Ultimately defendants agreed to pay USI $1,242,000 in installments. USI petitioned the CCAA court for clearance to proceed with settlement. Pursuant to that court’s directions, USI posted notice on its website informing creditors of the settlement. Alleging that the posting violated a confidentiality clause, the defendants refused to pay in accordance with the settlement. A magistrate ruled that there was no breach because the posting was “very, very vague,” but enjoined USI from future publication of the information. The district court reversed, holding that magistrates are not authorized to issue injunctions. Defendants then filed a separate suit, claiming that USI breached the confidentiality provision, and that under the “first-breach doctrine,” one who commits the first “substantial breach” of a contract cannot maintain an action against the other party for failure to perform; they obtained a temporary restraining order in state court that prevented USI from collecting on its judgment. After transfer back to the court in which the settlement was approved, the district court dissolved the injunction. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Nat'l Viatical, Inc.,v. Universal Settlement Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs owned property that was conveyed by warranty deed to J.A. Reed. In 1968, Reed conveyed the property to Julianne Biggane, and in 2006, the Biggane Trust transferred the property to Plaintiffs. Prior to Reed's transfer of the property to Biggane, a pole line easement across the property was granted to PacifiCorp's predecessor in interest. Reed, however, signed the easement grant as president of Continental Live Stock Company, rather than in his personal capacity, at a time that the company had no interest in the underlying land. Therefore, the easement was a "wild deed." At issue before the Supreme Court was whether a "wild deed" can be the "root of title" under the Wyoming Marketable Title Act. This case arose when Plaintiffs filed an action seeking to have the easement declared invalid because it emanated from a wild deed. The district court held that the Act validated PacifiCorp's easement across Plaintiffs' property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a wild deed may constitute the root of title under the Act, and a wild deed serving as a root of title that does not bear a defect "on its face" is not an "inherent defect" in the chain of record title under the Act. View "Esterholdt v. PacifiCorp" on Justia Law