Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The issue in this case arose from a judgment which held that a "Designated Project or Premises" endorsement of a commercial general liability insurance policy purchased by a sporting goods store excluded coverage for a claim arising out of the sale of improperly reloaded ammunition. Petitioner Tom Erekson purchased a used .500 revolver from a sporting goods store, along with three boxes of handloaded ammunition, all of which the store purchased from the gun's previous owner. Erekson and his sons took the revolver to a shooting range, loaded five chambers with the reloaded ammunition, and fired. The one cartridge discharged, but two others detonated simultaneously. When the cartridge under the loading gate detonated, it sheared off the gate, a portion of the cartridge rocketed rearward, and struck Erekson in the forehead, lodging three inches into his brain. He also lost a portion of his thumb. The store held a general liability policy through Markel International Insurance Company. The store brought suit for a court order to declare Erekson's injuries were covered under the policy. The district court held that the injury was excluded; Erekson unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration. Upon review of the policy, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding coverage was excluded under the endorsement.

Defendants Jay and Theresa Knowlton appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs-Appellants Tapadeera, LLC and Cary Hamilton (d/b/a C&J Construction) on their claim that Defendants prevented Plaintiffs from performing a settlement agreement to resolve a lawsuit between the parties. Tapadeera owned a parcel of property that had been platted as one lot. Tapadeera sold the property as two parcels -a two-acre parcel and a six-acre parcel purchased apparently under a real estate contract. The purchasers had a modular home placed on the two-acre parcel, but they failed to make the payments due in both transactions. As a result, the lender foreclosed on the two-acre parcel, and Tapadeera regained title to the six-acre parcel. Defendants desired both parcels to construct a home. They purchased the two-acre parcel from the bank, and contracted with Tapadeera to purchase the six-acre parcel. After making several payments under the contract, Mr. Knowlton contacted Cary Hamilton, Tapadeera's president, to determine the amount necessary to pay the contract in full. Mrs. Knowlton recorded the deed, and the Knowltons stopped payment on the check when they discovered that they could not obtain a building permit for the six-acre parcel because it had been wrongly divided from the two-acre parcel. For over four years, neither party took any action regarding this transaction. Eventually the parties sought to finish the deal, and it headed to court. Mr. Hamilton agreed to fix the subdivision problem and the Knowltons agreed to pay the balance owing. However, when notice of the subdivision was mailed to adjacent and affected property owners, the Knowltons were omitted from the notice. They learned of the hearing regarding the subdivision after it was over; they gave notice that they were withdrawing their subdivision application. The court held that the county's approval of the subdivision application was a condition precedent to the Knowltons' obligation to pay the balance, but that they had wrongfully prevented performance of that condition by withdrawing the subdivision application. The Knowltons moved for reconsideration which was denied. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed: "This case illustrates the time and expense that can be wasted when the parties fail to exercise common sense to resolve an issue. Clearly, Tapadeera should have had the lot subdivided in connection with the first sale. When the issue arose after the sale of the six-acre parcel to the Knowltons, the parties should have met and agreed to the resolution they reached six years later. Once they did so, they both should have been reasonable in doing whatever was necessary to effectuate the replatting of the lot."

Patrick McGinness, driving a vehicle owned by his adult daughter, negligently struck and injured Marie DeMeo. DeMeo obtained a $350,000 state-court judgment against McGinness. McGinness's daughter's insurer, American Family Insurance Company, paid its $100,000 policy limit under an owner's liability policy that covered McGinness as a permitted driver. State Farm insured McGinness under four liability policies issued for the cars he owed. Each policy provided coverage to McGinness when operating a non-owned vehicle such as his daughter's. Invoking the policies' "anti-stacking" provisions, State Farm paid the per-person limit of one policy, $50,000. De Meo filed this action to recover an additional $150,000, the combined limits of the other three policies. The district court held that the anti-stacking provisions did not conflict with Missouri's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act (MVFRL) requirements, which mandate that motor vehicle owners and operates maintain minimum levels of financial responsibility for damages arising out of their ownership or use of a motor vehicle, and granted summary judgment in State Farm's favor. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that there was no basis to conclude that the MVFRL demands stacking when there are multiple policies.

CS manufactures and sells X-ray and metal detection devices for use in public facilities around the world. Tecapro is a private, state-owned company that was formed by the Vietnamese government to advanced technologies into the Vietnamese market. In 2010, Tecapro purchased 28 customized AutoClear X-ray machines from CS for $1,021,156. The contract provides that disputes shall be settled at International Arbitration Center of European countries for claim in the suing party’s country under the rule of the Center. Tecapro initiated arbitration proceedings in Belgium in November 2010. In December 2010, CS notified Tecapro of its intention to commence arbitration proceedings in New Jersey. In January 2011, CS filed its petition to compel arbitration in New Jersey and enjoin Tecapro from proceeding with arbitration in Belgium. The district court concluded that it had subject matter jurisdiction under the U.N.Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, that it had personal jurisdiction over Tecapro, and that Tecapro could have sought to arbitrate in Vietnam and CS in New Jersey. The latter is what happened, so “the arbitration shall proceed in New Jersey.” After determining that it had jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1, the Third Circuit affirmed.

Joseph purchased the BP franchise in 2006 for $400,000. In 2009, Sasafrasnet purchased BP’s interests in the land and a Dealer Lease and Supply Agreement, becoming lessor and franchisor. The DLSA authorizes Sasafrasnet to terminate if Joseph fails to make payment according to EFT policy, causing a draft to be dishonored as NSF more than once in 12 months; Sasafrasnet is not obligated to extend credit, but did deliver fuel before collecting payment. There were several instances of NSF EFTs; Sasafrasnet began to require payment in advance. Later, Sasafrasnet allowed Joseph to resume paying by EFT within three days of delivery, but established a $2,500 penalty for any NSF and stated that pre-pay would resume if he incurred two more NSFs. There were additional NSFs, so that Joseph had incurred nine for amounts over $20,000 and three for amounts over $45,000. Sasafrasnet gave Joseph 90 days’ notice that it was terminating his franchise, listing the NSFs and failing scores on a mystery shopper inspection as bases for termination. Joseph sued under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 2801. The district court denied a preliminary injunction to prevent the termination. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that the statute requires additional findings.

Defendant United Polychem, Inc. (UPC) and Lynne Van Der Wall (collectively, Appellants) and Plaintiff Westlake Petrochemicals, LLC (Westlake) appealed different results of a jury trial. At the core of the trial was an agreement between UPC as buyer and Westlake as seller of ethylene, a petroleum product. The jury found that (1) the parties had formed a binding contract, (2) UPC breached that contract, and, as a result, (3) UPC was liable to Westlake for $6.3 million in actual damages and $633,200 in attorneys fees. The district court also held Van Der Wall jointly and severally liable under the terms of a guaranty agreement. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) a binding contract was established, (2) the district court applied the incorrect measure of damages, and (3) Van Der Wall, as UPC's president, was not jointly and severally liable with UPC for the jury verdict under the terms of the guaranty. The Court vacated the damages award and remanded for the district court to calculate the damages under Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. 2.708(b).

The Stockmans entered into an extension of their mineral lease with Chesapeake Louisiana, L.P. and received a $240,000 bonus. In May 2008, the Stockmans entered into a mineral lease with Petrohawk Properties, L.P. for a $1.45 million bonus. Petrohawk then dishonored the draft and executed a second mineral lease with the Stockmans, paying them a $1.7 million bonus. Chesapeake sued the Stockmans for breach of contract, and the parties settled at trial. The Stockmans then sued Petrohawk for fraud in obtaining the first mineral lease, and Chespeake sued Petrohawk for intentional interference with its contract with the Stockmans. The district court (1) found that Petrohawk procured the first mineral lease by fraud and rescinded the lease, (2) dismissed Chesapeake's tort claim, and (3) dismissed Petrohawk's claim for a return of its bonus money. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Petrohawk obtained the first lease by fraud, and the district court did not err in rescinding the lease, awarding attorney's fees to the Stockmans; (2) the district court did not err in dismissing Petrohawk's counterclaim for the return of the lease bonus; and (3) the district court correctly dismissed Chespeake's intentional interference with a contract claim.

South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. (Farm Bureau) brought a declaratory judgment action to determine whether Henry Kennedy was entitled to underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage for an accident. The trial court found Kennedy was entitled to UIM coverage under the terms of the policy because Kennedy was "upon" and thus "occupying" the insured vehicle at the time of the accident. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court granted Kennedy's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the appellate court's decision. Initially, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court's finding of actual physical contact was supported by the evidence. The trial court found Kennedy had left the engine running on his employer's vehicle; that he was in physical contact with the covered vehicle (with his hand on the truck) when the other vehicle careened towards him, forcing him to relinquish his contact in order to attempt to avoid injury; that Kennedy was "upon" and "occupying" the vehicle at the time of the accident; and he was entitled to UIM coverage under the Farm Bureau policy. Moreover, a second, resultant physical contact was established when Kennedy was pinned against the insured vehicle. The Supreme Court concluded that a requirement that an insured remain in physical contact with the insured vehicle in the face of imminent danger was unreasonable and unconscionable. Consequently, the Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals.

This case was the third appeal to the Supreme Court arising from a 2002 real estate transaction between Thomas and Colleen Birch-Maile and the Theodore L. Johnson Revocable Trust. Attorney and Real Estate Broker Thomas Maile advised the Trust to reject an offer to sell certain trust property. Months later, Mr. Maile submitted an earnest money agreement for the same property. The prospective buyers, collectively the Taylors, sued the Mailes and Berkshire Investments, LLC (the company that the Mailes formed and to whom they assigned rights to the property) for professional malpractice and breach of fiduciary duties. The Mailes filed suit seeking to set aside a 2006 judgment against them, which the Court affirmed in the second appeal. The district court determined on summary judgment that the 2006 judgment was res judicata with regard to the issues raised in the Mailes' complaint. At trial the jury awarded damages against the Mailes on the Taylors' counterclaim. The Mailes appealed and the Supreme Court affirmed: the district court was correct in summarily dismissing the Mailes' lawsuit and denying their motion for JNOV. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney to two of the prospective buyers.

The issue before the Supreme Court in this was the denial of attorney fees under Idaho Code section 41-1839 on the ground that the insured's proof of loss was insufficient under the statute because it did not provide the insurer with the legal theory upon which coverage was later determined to exist. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment because a proof of loss need not include an analysis of the proper theory of coverage under the insurance policy.