Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Maria Marusa was driving her car when it was struck by a police cruiser driven by a police officer (Officer). Marusa and her daughter (collectively, Appellants) were injured in the accident. Appellants filed suit against Marusa's insurer (Insurer), seeking damages to compensate for medical expenses and pain and suffering. Insurer answered that it was not obligated to pay damages because even though the policy included uninsured-motorist coverage and the officer was an uninsured motorist, Appellants were not "legally entitled to recover" because Officer was immune under the Ohio Political Subdivision Tort Liability Law (OPSTLL). The trial court granted summary judgment for Insurer, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the language of the policy unambiguously provides uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage when the insured is injured by an owner or operator who is immune under the OPSTLL. View "Marusa v. Erie Ins. Co." on Justia Law

This dispute arose out of a contract to sell a shopping center. The contract was amended on several occasions. In one provision, the buyer agreed to indemnify the seller for a real estate commission, which they both disclaimed in the contract itself, that might ultimately be owed to a particular real estate broker. Another provision provided for forfeiture of the buyer's deposit if the transaction did not close on the timetable in the contract. The transaction ultimately closed after the appointed date, and the real estate broker successfully sued the seller for a commission. The buyer went bankrupt, and the seller and the assignee investors were left to sort of the consequences of the course of events. The Court of Appeals held (1) the seller here was not entitled to indemnification from the assignee investors for its liability for the broker's commission, even though the buyer (their assignor) was obligated to indemnify the seller; (2) the seller was not entitled to forfeit the deposit funded by the investors; and (3) the seller was entitled to have the investors' claim for refund of the deposit offset by the amount of indemnification that the buyer owed the seller. View "Pines Plaza Ltd. P'ship v. Berkley Trace, LLC" on Justia Law

In an attempt to avert the foreclosure of her home, Plaintiff sought to modify the terms of her mortgage pursuant to the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), a federal initiative that incentivizes lenders and loan servicers to offer loan modifications to eligible homeowners. When Plaintiff's efforts did not result in a permanent loan modification, she sued Wells Fargo Bank and American Home Mortgage Servicing, alleging that their conduct during her attempts to modify her mortgage violated Massachusetts law. The district court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim. The First Circuit Court of Appeal (1) affirmed the district court's judgment as to the dismissal of Plaintiff's claims of breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (2) vacated the dismissal of Plaintiff's other breach of contract claim, Plaintiff's unfair debt collection practices claim under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, and her derivative claim for equitable relief. Remanded. View "Young v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Following remand from a prior appeal, the district court determined that defendant's breach of two contracts proximately caused injury to Carco. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court's findings were erroneous because proximate causation did not exist, and that various determinations as to damages, fees, costs, and interest were derivatively, as well as independently, in error. Carco challenged certain aspects of the district court's calculation of the attorneys' fees awarded to Carco and the denial of prejudgment interest on that award. The court vacated and remanded Carco's breach of contract claim for further determinations regarding proximate causation and quantification of Carco's damages on its contract claim, and, if appropriate, the related question of the applicability of an offset to any resulting damages award. To the extent any damages, fees, costs, and interest awards were based on the breach of contract cause of action, they were also vacated. All damages, costs, and interest awards based on Carco's faithless servant claim were affirmed. The twenty-percent reduction and denial of interest on attorneys' fees were reversed. The court instructed the district court to recalculate the award of attorneys' fees in light of those reversals and in light of its findings with respect to proximate cause on Carco's contract claim. View "Carco Group, Inc. et al. v. Maconachy" on Justia Law

Woodard & Curran, Inc. ("W&C") sued the City of Baldwin seeking damages on claims of breach of contract and quantum meruit. After a trial, a jury awarded W&C $203,000 in a general verdict that did not specify the basis for the damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider two issues: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that quantum meruit was an available remedy against a municipality when the claim is based on a municipal contract that is ultra vires; and (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining that the jury was properly allowed to consider the breach of contract claim based on an agreement the parties entered in May 2009. Upon review, the Court concluded that the Court of Appeals erred in both respects, and therefore reversed its judgment. View "City of Baldwin v. Woodard & Curran, Inc." on Justia Law

This appeal arose from appellee Bank of America, N.A.'s attempts to enforce the terms of the promissory note and deed to secure debt executed in its favor by appellant Johnta M. Austin ("Borrower"). The Bank sued to collect the debt it claimed the Borrower owed as a result of default, including attorney fees, and the trial court awarded the Bank summary judgment. The issue came on appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court because the constitutionality of the statute at issue was called into question. The Court has long held that "all presumptions are in favor of the constitutionality of an act of the legislature and that before an [a]ct of the legislature can be declared unconstitutional, the conflict between it and the fundamental law must be clear and palpable and [the] Court must be clearly satisfied of its unconstitutionality." The Court found that the statute in this case bore a rational relation to the purpose for which the statute was intended, namely to provide debtors with the opportunity to avoid the contractual obligation to pay the creditor’s attorney fees by allowing the debtor a last chance to pay the balance of the debt and avoid litigation. Further, the Court concluded that the application of OCGA 13-1-11 to arrive at the amount of the award of attorney fees in this case was neither punitive nor violative of Borrowers’ due process rights, nor was the award contrary to the intent of the statute. View "Austin v. Bank of America N.A." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against NoteWorld alleging, among other things, violations under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq., and Washington state law. At issue on appeal was whether an entity could compel arbitration on the basis of an arbitration clause in a contract to which it was not a party. The court concluded that the district court correctly concluded that NoteWorld was not entitled to invoke the arbitration clause as a third-party beneficiary or through equitable estoppel. Accordingly, the court need not decide any other question on appeal and affirmed the judgment. View "Rajagopalan v. NoteWorld, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were individuals who lived in New York and worked there as couriers for Defendant, a corporation headquartered in Massachusetts. Plaintiffs brought this action in a Massachusetts court to enforce certain Massachusetts independent contractor, wage, and overtime pay statutes. The superior court dismissed the complaint, concluding (1) the Massachusetts independent contractor statute does not apply to non-Massachusetts residents working outside Massachusetts, and (2) as independent contractors, Plaintiffs failed to state claims under the Massachusetts wage statutes. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of dismissal and remanded for further proceedings, holding that, insofar as the written contract between the parties contained an enforceable clause requiring both that actions be brought in Massachusetts and requiring that the contract and all rights and obligations of the parties be determined under Massachusetts law, and where application of Massachusetts law is not contrary to a fundamental policy of the jurisdiction where the individuals live and work, it was error to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint. View "Taylor v. E. Connection Operating, Inc." on Justia Law

A husband and wife applied for life insurance policies from Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company and later sued Farm Bureau for its alleged negligence in failing to notify them of their HIV-positive status. Farm Bureau settled the negligence claims, sued its insurers for indemnity, and sued its insurance broker for breach of contract and negligence in failing to provide timely notice to the insurers. The district court granted summary judgment (1) in favor of the insurers on the ground that Farm Bureau had failed to give them timely notice of the applicants' liability claims, and (2) in favor of the broker after concluding that even if the insurers had been given timely notice of the applicants' tort claims against Farm Bureau, coverage for those claims would have been precluded under two separate exclusions. In this appeal, Farm Bureau challenged the judgment in favor of the broker. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the underwriting exclusion would have precluded coverage for the applicants' claims even if the insurers had been timely notified under the policy's notice requirement. View "Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co. v. Holmes Murphy & Assocs., Inc." on Justia Law

Chartis Insurance issued two workers' compensation insurance policies to Action Warehouse Company. Action, in turn, contracted with two tire companies to provide employees to operate tire warehouses owned by the companies and used exclusively to store the goods manufactured by the respective employers. Originally, Chartis classified the Action employees who staffed the warehouses under the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) classification code applicable to general warehouse employees. Later, Chartis retroactively and prospectively changed the employees' classification code to the code applicable to rubber tire manufacturing, resulting in a significantly higher premium. Action appealed. The NCCI Iowa workers' compensation appeals board ruled in favor of Chartis. The Iowa Insurance Commissioner reversed, and the district court affirmed. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Commissioner had the authority under Iowa Code 515A.1 to consider an as-applied challenge to a workers' compensation liability insurance rating schedule approved for use in accordance with Iowa law. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Commissioner did not have the authority to determine that a specific application of a plan approved under Iowa Code 515A.4 violated the statute's general purpose as outlined in section 515A.1 by being excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. View "Chartis Ins. v. Iowa Ins. Comm'r" on Justia Law