Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

This case began as a dispute over construction costs between Appellee TriBuilt Construction Group, LLC and Appellants NISHA, LLC and Centennial Bank. After Appellee filed suit against Appellants, the circuit court ordered arbitration with regard to Appellee's claims. Appellee subsequently decided to represent itself in the arbitration and circuit court proceedings. Appellants filed a petition for a permanent injunction requesting the circuit court to enjoin the corporation's officers, director, or employees from representing Tribuilt in the circuit court or arbitration proceedings. The circuit court denied Appellants' petition so far as it pertained to arbitration proceedings, holding (1) nonlawyer representation in an arbitration proceeding does not constitute the practice of law; and (2) an arbitrator, rather than the court, should determine issues regarding legal representation during arbitration proceedings. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a corporate officer, director, or employee who is not a licensed attorney, engages in the unauthorized practice of law by representing the corporation in arbitration proceedings; and (2) issues regarding legal representation during arbitration proceedings fall squarely within the ambit of the court's constitutional powers and may not be decided by an arbitration body.

At issue in this case was a claim for damages relating to a drilling contract Petitioner Elcon Construction and Respondent Eastern Washington University. Elcon alleged tort and contract claims. The contract claims were resolved by arbitration. In dismissing the tort claims, the trial court applied the independent duty rule formerly known as the "economic loss rule," which the Court of Appeals similarly applied in affirming. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court and Court of Appeals misapplied the independent duty doctrine to bar Elcon's tort claims in this case. The Court found Elcon's claims failed factually. Viewing the facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Elcon, no genuine issues of material fact existed with respect to Elcon's fraud in the inducement or tortious interference claims. The Court affirmed on different grounds reached by the trial and appeals courts.

Companion was authorized to license space in Wal-Mart stores to companies that sell durable medical equipment and entered into licensing agreements with defendants. In 2007, defendants shut down operations. Companion sued. Problems arose during discovery, including defense counsel motions to withdraw, allegations of inadequate responses to discovery requests, objections to the scope of discovery, refusal to attend depositions, motions to compel, multiple extensions, and claims of obstruction. After three years, the district judge imposed a default as to all counts, based on discovery violations by the defendants. The court eventually lifted the default except as to Companion's veil piercing claim, allowing the substantive claims to go to trial. A jury found for Companion and awarded more than $1 million in damages. Defendants, personally liable as a result of the default, appealed. The First Circuit vacated the default and remanded, "because the district court imposed such a severe sanction based on a very limited slice of the relevant facts."

Plaintiff, an auto parts distributor with operations in multiple states, secured general liability, automotive liability, and workers' compensation policies from defendants for annual coverage periods between September 1992 and September 2003. At issue was whether the six-year statue of limitations applicable to the insurers' breach of contract counterclaims began to run when they possessed the legal right to demand payment from the insured or years later after they issued invoices. Under the terms of the insurance contracts in this case, the court concluded that the counterclaims accrued when the insurers had the right to demand payment.

In a consolidated appeal, plaintiffs contended that the district court erred in denying their motions to remand and in dismissing their workplace safety claims as time-barred. Plaintiffs claimed, inter alia, that Dresser failed to properly monitor and mitigate exposure to loud noise at Dresser's industrial facility and that these failures led to long-term hearing loss. The court concluded that Dresser owed plaintiffs duties under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and simultaneously owed non-negotiable, independent duties under Louisiana tort law. These duties formed the bases for two distinct types of claims - contract and tort - either of which plaintiffs could have brought before the district court. Plaintiffs chose to sue in tort, without reference to the CBA, and their claims could be adjudicated by sole resort to Louisiana tort law. Applying the Supreme Court's construction of section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185(a), the district court was without jurisdiction and therefore erred in denying the motions to remand and in granting the motions to dismiss. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed and remanded.

In 2010, BLGH entered into an agreement with enXco to sell BLGH's renewable energy business, Beacon, to enXco. The Unit Purchase Agreement that governed the sale of Beacon (UPA) called for a purchase price of $12 million, plus a "bonus payment" to BLGH if certain conditions were met. The sale of Beacon took place and BLGH was paid $12 million. A dispute arose, however, over whether BLGH was entitled to the additional bonus payment. enXco claimed that no bonus payment was legally due. BLGH responded by filing a Superior Court action against enXco for breach of contract. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to enXco, holding that no bonus payment was owed to BLGH under the UPA. The court reversed and held that the Superior Court erred as a matter of law in granting summary judgment to enXco where the transaction "outlined" in the letter of intent met the requirements of Section 1.7 of the UPA, triggering BLGH's right to a bonus payment, and nothing more was required by the UPA for BLGH to become legally entitled to the bonus payment.

Appellant was injured when she was involved in a motor vehicle accident. The other vehicle involved in the accident, a truck, was listed on two different insurance policies: an Allstate policy issued to Jeremy Lucas and a Mountain West policy issued to Wyoming Electric Company. Appellee, Mountain West, filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, requesting that the district court find Mountain West did not have to cover the truck under the policy. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Mountain West, finding that the owner of Wyoming Electric had given the truck to Lucas and, therefore, the truck was no longer covered under the company's insurance policy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that although the truck was titled and registered in the name of Wyoming Electric and was still listed as a specific vehicle on the Mountain West Policy, Mountain West was not required to pay under the policy because, on the date of the accident, Wyoming electric no longer owned the truck and the truck was no longer covered under the Mountain West insurance policy.

Robert Johnson filed a summons and complaint against Cintas Corporation, alleging he had automobile liability insurance coverage through Cintas. Johnson subsequently served his summons and complaint upon the registered agent for Cintas Corporation No. 2, a wholly owned subsidiary of Cintas. Johnson then amended his summons and complaint to name Cintas No. 2 as the correct defendant. The circuit court granted default judgment against Cintas No. 2 and denied that Cintas No. 2 was entitled to notice of the amended summons and complaint. The court of appeals reversed, holding that because Johnson's summons and complaint did not name Cintas No. 2 as a defendant, the circuit court lacked personal jurisdiction over Cintas No. 2, and therefore, the default judgment was void. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that service in this case was fundamentally defective because Johnson failed to name Cintas No. 2 as a defendant in his summons and complaint, and therefore, the circuit court lacked personal jurisdiction over Cintas No. 2, regardless of the manner in which Cintas No. 2 held itself out to the public or to Johnson specifically.

After Employer and Employee settled a suit Employee brought against Employer, Employer's Insurer paid the policy's maximum of $2 million pursuant to an oral funding agreement. Insurer then filed an action against Employer, seeking a declaration that its policies provided no coverage for Employee's claim and reimbursement of the $2 million. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Employer on March 26, but the parties agreed to delay entry of a final judgment. On July 8, the circuit court entered a final judgment. Insurer appealed on August 12. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal as untimely, concluding that the circuit court's March 26 decision and order was the final order for purposes of appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Insurer's appeal was timely because although the March 26 order arguably disposed of the entire matter in litigation between the parties, it did not unambiguously do so, and therefore, the July 8 judgment was final for purposes of appeal; (2) the funding agreement was an enforceable contract; (3) under these circumstances, an insurer cannot recover payments based on an unjust enrichment theory; and (4) Insurer's asserted mistake of fact did not provide grounds for voiding the contract.

Roger Hooban sued Unicity International for breach of a distribution agreement. The district court entered summary judgment for Unicity, holding that Hooban was not a party to the agreement and lacked standing to sue for its enforcement. Unicity then filed a motion for attorney fees under Utah's reciprocal attorney fees statute, Utah Code Ann. 78B-5-826. The district court denied the motion on the ground that section 826 was inapplicable given that Hooban was not a party to the underlying contract. The court of appeals reversed, interpreting the Supreme Court's opinion in Bilanzich v. Lonetti to dictate a fee award in litigation that is based on a written contract where the contract allows at least one party to the litigation to recover fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding section 826 authorized the court to award fees to Unicity because, had Hooban's theory of the case prevailed in the district court, he would have been a party to the contract and the contract would have allowed Hooban to recover fees.