Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the circuit court concluding that the notice-prejudice rule adopted in Jones v. Bituminous Casualty Corp., 821 S.W.2d 798 (Ky. 1991), applied in the underlying case, holding that there was no error.At issue was whether the claims-made-and-reported management liability policy issued by Allied World Specialty Insurance Company to Kentucky State University (KSU) provided coverage when KSU did not comply with the policy's notice provisions. The circuit court granted summary judgment for KSU after applying the notice-prejudice rule. The court of appeals reversed, determining that the notice-prejudice rule did not apply. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the policy's notice provisions were clear and unambiguous and that Allied World was entitled to deny coverage to KSU because KSU did not comply with the notice requirements; and (2) generally, the notice-prejudice rule shall not apply to a claims-made-and-reported policy that contains unambiguous notice requirements as condition precedent to coverage. View "Ky. State University v. Darwin Nat'l Assurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal two orders of the circuit court in which the court denied the requests brought by Mark and Annessee Brockley to hold Michael Trucano, the Michael J. Truman Living Trust, and Hickoks Hotel & Suites, LLC in contempt, holding that there was no error.The Brockleys sued several entities seeking the amount remaining due on a contract. The circuit court granted partially summary judgment in favor of the Brockleys. At issue was the circuit court's charging order directing an entity that later changed its name to Hickoks to pay certain distributions owed to the Brockleys. The Brockleys filed motions for an order to show cause claiming that several defendants should be held in contempt for violating the charging order. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court was not clearly erroneous when it found that neither Trucano, the Trucano Trust, nor Hickoks willfully or contumaciously violated the charging order. View "Brockley v. Ellis" on Justia Law

Darren and Tamara Berger (“Bergers”) appealed a judgment dismissing their claims of violation of a planned unit development (PUD), breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, private nuisance, and negligence against their neighbors Jason and Krysta Sellers (“Sellers”), Sellers’ homebuilder Jordan Anderson and Big River Builders, Inc. (together, “Builder”), and the Misty Waters Owners’ Association (“Association”). Sellers and Builder cross-appealed the judgment dismissing their claims of defamation, interference with contract and business, and negligence against Bergers and neighbor Jeff Carlson. The central issue in this case was whether the PUD minimum setback from the bay could be changed by obtaining a new Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) without an amendment to the PUD. To this, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the PUD unambiguously set the minimum setback from the bay as the contour line in the 2005 LOMR-F and therefore Sellers’ home violated the PUD. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Bergers’ claims against Sellers for violation of the PUD, breach of restrictive covenants, negligence (drainage), and private nuisance (setbacks). The Court remanded with instructions to grant Bergers partial summary judgment on their claims against Sellers for violation of the PUD and breach of restrictive covenants and for declaratory relief (against Sellers) as requested in their motion for partial summary judgment. The Court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on Bergers’ claims against the Association for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence. The Court affirmed the court’s grant of summary judgment on all of Bergers’ claims against Builder, namely the PUD violation, breach of restrictive covenants, and negligence. The Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment on Bergers’ claims against the Association for breach of restrictive covenants and private nuisance. The Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment on all of Sellers’ and Builder’s claims. View "Berger, et al. v. Sellers, et al." on Justia Law

In this review of a decision of the Public Service Commission relating to rates charged by Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) for the provision of electric service, the Supreme Court held that the Commission had not supplied a basis for meaningful judicial review of its conclusion that the settlement agreement provided a reasonable resolution of the issues, established reasonable rates, and was in the public interest.The settlement agreement at issue was between FPL and seven parties that intervened in the matter and permitted FPL to increase its base rates and service charges. After hearing arguments in favor of and against the settlement agreement the Commission concluded that the agreement "provides a reasonable resolution of all issues raised, establishes rates that are fair, just, and reasonable, and is in the public interest." The Supreme Court reversed, holding that remand was required because the Commission failed to perform its duty to explain its reasoning. View "Floridians Against Increased Rates, Inc. v. Clark" on Justia Law

In this discretionary appeal brought by Discovery Oil and Gas, LLC to determine whether an express indemnification provision in its contract with Wildcat Drilling, LLC evinced a clear intent by the parties to abrogate the common-law notice requirements for indemnification set forth in Globe Indemnity Co. v. Schmitt, 53 N.E.2d 790 (Ohio 1944), the Supreme Court held that the requirements announced in Globe Indemnity did not apply.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) when the parties have entered into a contract containing an express indemnification provision, the common-law notice requirements set forth in Globe Indemnity do not apply, and the parties are bound by the terms of their contract because the provision evinces a clear intent by the parties to abrogate the common law; and (2) the language of the contract in this case evicted the parties' clear intent to abrogate the common-law notice requirements for indemnification. View "Wildcat Drilling, LLC v. Discovery Oil & Gas, LLC" on Justia Law

Fitness International, LLC was operating an indoor gym and fitness center when it entered into an amended lease with KB Salt Lake III, LLC, that required Fitness International to renovate the premises. However, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted government orders that closed indoor gyms but allowed commercial construction to continue. Fitness International nevertheless stopped construction at the Chatsworth site, remained in possession of the premises, and stopped paying rent. KB Salt Lake filed an unlawful detainer action, and the trial court granted KB Salt Lake’s motion for summary judgment. Fitness International appealed.   The Second Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court explained that Fitness International argued that the lease is a “monthly installment contract” and that each month it could not operate the premises as a fitness facility, frustrated the purpose of the contract. The court wrote that neither the pandemic nor the COVID-19 closure orders, however, prevented Fitness International from reopening the gym. Thus, even if California law recognized temporary frustration of purpose, and even if the lease was an “installment contract,” Fitness International still had to make rent payments under the lease. Moreover, the court explained that Fitness International argues the purpose of section 1511 “is to excuse performance under circumstances like these,” but Fitness International cites no authority describing the purpose of section 1511, nor does Fitness International explain how the trial court’s ruling was contrary to any such purpose. View "Fitness International v. KB Salt Lake III" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court in favor of Cummings Properties, LLC in this suit brought to enforce Darryl Hines's obligations as guarantor of a commercial lease, holding that Hines failed to meet his burden to prove that the amount provided for in the lease's liquidated damages clause was an unreasonable forecast of damages at the time the lease was signed.At issue was whether a liquidated damages clause in the lease was unenforceable where Hines's company defaulted on the rent but Cummings was able to relet the property. The trial judge found in favor of Cummings and awarded it the balance owed under the lease's liquidated damages clause. The appeals court reversed, determining that the liquidated damages provision was an unenforceable penalty because it did not account for the possibility that Cummings could, in mitigation of Hines's breach, relet the premises and collect rent. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) this Court has never required that the amount of a liquidated damages clause take into account any future rents collected from a new tenant to be enforceable; and (2) Hines failed to meet his burden to show that the liquidated damages clause was unenforceable. View "Cummings Properties, LLC v. Hines" on Justia Law

Endeavor Operating Company, LLC (Endeavor) is a “holding company” that owns “various subsidiaries in the entertainment, sports, and fashion business sectors.” Endeavor sued the insurers for (1) declaratory relief and (2) breach of contract related to COVID-19 closures. The insurers demurred to the complaint. The trial court issued a ruling (1) sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend and (2) denying Endeavor’s motion for a new trial. The court modified its initial ruling to find that the “actual” or “threatened presence” of COVID-19 or the SARS-CoV-2 virus “does not constitute a physical loss or damage required to trigger coverage for property insurance coverage” but reaffirmed its initial ruling that the contamination/pollution exclusion applied, which in the court’s view obviated its need to address the argument Endeavor raised for the first time in its new trial motion. Endeavor appealed.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court concluded that the insurance policy unambiguously requires “direct physical loss or damage to property” before Endeavor may recover under the business interruption clauses. The court held that Endeavor failed as a matter of law to plead “direct physical loss or damage to property.” The court explained that California courts are in accord that the phrase “direct physical loss or damage to property” means a “‘distinct, demonstrable, physical alteration’” of the insured property. This is the default definition to be applied where a policy does not provide a different definition of “direct physical loss or damage.” The policy here provides no different definition. View "Endeavor Operating Co., LLC v. HDI Global Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded in part the judgment of the circuit court determining that Tom Smith Masonry had a valid mechanic's lien for the unpaid balance due under a construction contract with WIPI Group USA, Inc., holding that the circuit court erred in denying Smith Masonry a judgment of foreclosure on the mechanic's lien for the full amount of the recorded lien.Smith Masonry instituted a mechanic's lien foreclosure action against WIPI seeking to recover unpaid balance due under the parties' construction contract and an award of attorney fees. WIPI counterclaimed for breach of contract. The circuit court ultimately denied both parties relief, determining that Smith Masonry had a valid mechanic's lien for the unpaid contract balance but that WIPI was entitled to an offset because the work did not meet the reasonable standard for construction. The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded or the court to enter a judgment of foreclosure in favor of Smith Masonry on its mechanics lien, holding that the circuit court erred in determining that WIPI was entitled to a wholesale offset of the amount due under the contract. View "Smith Masonry v. WIPI Group, USA" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of The Genevieve J. Parmely Revocable Trust asking the court to determine that an option agreement made with Brad Magness was invalid because of the absence of consideration, holding that the circuit court erred.In denying summary judgment for Magness and in granting the Trust's second motion for summary judgment the circuit court determined that the written option agreements at issue were not supported by independent consideration and were null and void. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Trust failed to rebut the presumption of consideration established by S.D. Codified Laws 53-6-3. View "Genevieve J. Parmely Revocable Trust v. Magness" on Justia Law