Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's dismissal of his suit alleging claims of equitable estoppel and breach of fiduciary duties pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court held that plaintiff stated a claim for relief that was cognizable under ERISA, in light of CIGNA Corp. v. Amara. Because relief was available under the surcharge doctrine under Amara, the court did not address the equitable estoppel claim and the district court was free to consider that claim on remand. Finally, the district court did not err in dismissing Defendant Entergy Mississippi where plaintiff failed to allege that Entergy Mississippi sponsored or administered the plan or made any decisions with respect to his benefits. View "Gearlds, Jr. v. Entergy Services, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

Lehigh appealed the district court's award of damages to plaintiffs under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA), 15 U.S.C. 2801-2841. At issue was whether a franchisor could be held under the PMPA for failing to provide notice to a "trial franchisee" prior to termination of its franchise. The court held that the PMPA provided a right of action, both to "full" and "trial" franchisees, when a franchisor failed properly to notify it prior to terminating the franchise. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding plaintiffs compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs, and interest. View "Jimico Enterprises, Inc. v. Lehigh Gas Corp." on Justia Law

In 2001, U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement awarded Northrop a contract for lease and support of Oakley network monitoring software for one base year and three option years at about $900,000 per year. To obtain Oakley’s software, Northrop was required to pay $2,899,710, so Northrup assigned its payment rights to ESCgov for $3,296,093. ESCgov assigned its rights to Citizens, but the government was not notified. In 2005, ICE decided not to exercise the first option. Northrop sent the contracting officer a “Contract Disputes Act Claim for not Exercising Option,” citing the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. 601. The letter did not mention the two assignments. The CO denied Northrop’s claim. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed, holding that Northrop had not supplied the CO “adequate notice” because it failed to reference potential application of the Anti-Assignment Act and Severin doctrine. While the matter was pending, Northrop filed a second claim, including documents on the financing arrangements. The CO determined that Northrop’s second claim was the same claim and declined to issue a final decision. The Claims Court again held that it lacked jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit consolidated the cases and reversed, finding that the first letter constituted a valid claim. View "Northrop Grumman Computing Sys., Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Pearl Archambault died while in the care of Haven Health Center of Greenville (Haven Health) after a nurse mistakenly administered a lethal overdose of morphine. The administratrix of her estate, Plaintiff, filed a medical malpractice action against Haven Health. Health Haven subsequently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Thereafter, Plaintiff amended her complaint to add Columbia Casualty Company, the professional liability insurer of Health Haven, as a defendant and asserted two counts against Columbia directly based on R.I. Gen. Laws 27-7-2.4, which permits an injured party to proceed against an insurer when the insured has filed for bankruptcy. The superior court entered default judgment against Haven Health. The court then granted summary judgment in favor of Columbia. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment against Columbia, holding that the superior court erred in interpreting Rhode Island law and that the insurance contract between Columbia and Health Haven should be construed in Plaintiff's favor. View "Peloquin v. Haven Health Ctr. of Greenville, LLC" on Justia Law

Dean Pepper, the owner and sole shareholder of D.F. Pepper Construction (DFP) was driving one of his trucks home in the early winter morning. An icy road caused the truck to slide into Pepper's house and crash through the foundation and west wall. The house was later condemned and demolished as a result of the damage. The house was insured by Nationwide Casualty Insurance Company. Nationwide paid the loss. As subrogee of Pepper, Nationwide then sued DFP, the registered owner of the truck, alleging vicarious liability for the negligence of its employee, Pepper. The superior court issued judgment in favor of Nationwide, finding that Pepper had been negligent and that the antisubrogation rule did not apply in this case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in its judgment. View "Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. D.F. Pepper Constr., Inc." on Justia Law

DWS Properties (DWS) owned rental property. The sole member of DWS was Dustin Shore. After a pipe burst at the property causing substantial damage, Shore executed contracts with Performance Adjusting Public Insurance Adjusters (Performance) and Multi-State Restoration (Multi-State), in which Performance agreed to provide public adjusting service relative to the loss, and Multi-State agreed to perform emergency clean-up work at the property. Performance and Multi-State (Plaintiffs) were never paid for the services they provided, and after Shore filed for personal bankruptcy, Shore's debts to Plaintiffs were discharged. Plaintiffs subsequently filed suit against DWS, seeking damages for book account, breach of contract, quasi-contract, and unjust enrichment. DWS filed a motion to dismiss, which the hearing justice converted into a motion for summary judgment and granted, reasoning that Shore had signed the contracts in an individual capacity without making any reference to DWS. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court and remanded, holding (1) summary judgment was inappropriate on Plaintiffs' contract claims; and (2) the fact that DWS was not explicitly named on the contracts did not entitle it to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs' equitable claims. View "Multi-State Restoration, Inc. v. DWS Props., LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a Massachusetts corporation when it entered into a contract with Defendants. The contract was to be performed entirely in Rhode Island. Defendants subsequently commenced a civil action against Plaintiff. At the time, Plaintiff had a certificate of authority from the secretary of state, but after Plaintiff filed this action, the corporation's certificate of authority was revoked. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, determining that Plaintiff did not have a certificate of authority to transact business in Rhode Island, and therefore, it lacked the capacity to sue in the state. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a certificate was not required in this instance, but Plaintiff must obtain a certificate before proceeding to final judgment. View "Custom Metals Sys., Ltd. v. Tocci Building Corp." on Justia Law

Jared Crook was driving a Cadillac leased for him by his father, Calvin Crook, when he collided with Jessica Ahlquist's vehicle. Ahlquist sustained severe personal injuries as a result of the accident. The Cadillac was insured by Calvin through a policy issued by Allstate Insurance Company. Allstate paid the policy limits, and Ahlquist sought to recover additional compensation through another Allstate policy issued to Cheryl, Calvin's former wife. The policy was issued for Cheryl's vehicle. Allstate filed a declaratory judgment action arguing that Cheryl's insurance policy did not apply to the accident. The trial justice granted summary judgment in Allstate's favor. Ahlquist appealed, contending that the trial justice erred in granting summary judgment because Calvin, who was a named driver under Cheryl's insurance policy, provided the Cadillac to Jared. Ahlquist also argued that there was an ambiguity as to whether the policy covered the accident. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in its judgment. View "Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ahlquist" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Joe F. Watkins, Patricia M. Smith, and RE/MAX Lake Martin Properties, LLC sued Bear Brothers, Inc., ETC Lake Development, LLC ("ETC Lake"), and E.T. "Bud" Chambers, among others, asserting claims related to the construction and development of a condominium project on Lake Martin. ETC Lake and Chambers crossclaimed against Bear Brothers seeking to recover losses suffered on the project as well as indemnification for the costs of litigating the plaintiffs' action and any damages for which they might be found liable to the plaintiffs. In January 2010, Bear Brothers moved the circuit court to compel arbitration of the cross-claim against it. The circuit court did not rule on that motion. Bear Brothers renewed its motion in July 2011, and the circuit court granted the motion to compel arbitration of the cross-claim in December. Bear Brothers then moved the circuit court "to stay [the] proceedings [in the plaintiffs' action] pending the outcome of a related arbitration." After a hearing, the circuit court denied the motion to stay. Bear Brothers appealed the circuit court's order denying the motion to stay to the Supreme Court; ETC Lake and Chambers moved to dismiss the appeal. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the motion at issue in this case was a motion to stay related proceedings pending the arbitration of a crossclaim between codefendants and was filed separately from the initial motion to compel arbitration of the cross-claim and subsequent to the circuit court's order granting the motion. Thus, Bear Brothers did not demonstrate a right to appeal the denial of the motion to stay at this time, and accordingly the Court dismissed the appeal as being from a nonfinal judgment. View "Bear Brothers, Inc. v. ETC Lake Development, LLC" on Justia Law

The parties in this case entered into a real estate agreement thirteen years ago. The trial court concluded that the agreement constituted a contract for deed and that the purchasers had therefore acquired an equitable interest in the property in question. The court initiated a foreclosure on that interest, even though it had not been pled. Plaintiffs, the purchasers as found by the superior court, David and Barbara Prue, appealed the foreclosure. Defendant, the seller as found by the court, Larry Royer, appealed the court’s conclusions that the contract was an enforceable contract for deed. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed the court’s conclusion that the parties entered into a contract for deed and that it was enforceable, but reversed the foreclosure decree as premature. View "Prue v. Royer, Sr." on Justia Law