Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Appellant Voltage Vehicles appealed an order of the Arkansas Motor Vehicle Commission directing Voltage to repurchase six 2008 electric vehicles from two Arkansas dealers (collectively referred to as "Rainbow"). The order stemmed from a safety recall issued by Voltage regarding its vehicles, Rainbow's subsequent letter to Voltage and to the Commission notifying them of its desire to terminate the licensing agreement, and Voltage's refusal to repurchase the six vehicles Rainbow purchased from Voltage. The circuit court affirmed the Commission's order. Voltage appealed, arguing that the buy-back provisions of the Arkansas Motor Vehicle Commission Act did not require it to repurchase the vehicles in Rainbow's inventory because they were not for the "current model year and one year prior model year." The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the Commission failed in its obligation to make sufficient findings of fact relevant to the contested issued of what constituted the current model year, the Court could not determine whether the Commission resolved that issue in conformity with the law. Remanded to make findings based on the correct termination date. View "Voltage Vehicles v. Ark. Motor Vehicle Comm'n" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether a contractor's bid was responsive to the Delaware Department of Transportation's (DelDOT) Request for Proposals (RFP). The contractor's bid did not include required paint certifications. In addition, the bid reflected the contractor's plan to use new steel beams, rather than refurbish the existing ones, as required by the RFP. The contractor chose to submit a bid that did not conform to the project specifications. The Supreme Court concluded that the contractor therefore did so at its own risk. DelDOT's decision that the bid was non-responsive was not arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's entry of summary judgment in DelDOT's favor. View "Julian v. Delaware Dep't. of Transportation" on Justia Law

In 2007 the Postal Service awarded Tip Top a contract under which the Postal Service would assign individual projects by issuing work orders. In 2009, the Postal Service issued a work order to replace the air conditioning system at the Main Post Office in Christiansted, Virgin Islands, for the price of $229,736.92. As a result of that work Tip Top submitted a claim and request for an equitable adjustment under the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. 7101-7109, in the amount of $34,553.77, consisting of a subcontractor’s price for a change, plus 10% profit, 4% insurance, and 4% gross receipts tax, plus $9,655 for “Preparation Costs & Extended Overhead” and $2,745 for “Legal Fees.” The Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals ruled that Tip Top was entitled to recover $2,565. The Board ruled that Tip Top was not entitled to recover the balance of the amount claimed because it had failed to demonstrate that the costs at issue were incurred as a result of the change order. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded, with directions to grant the appeal in its entirety. The ruling was based upon an error of law and not supported by substantial evidence. View "Tip Top Constr., Inc.v. Donahoe" on Justia Law

Zaloudek Grain Company held a workers' compensation policy with CompSource Oklahoma for approximately ten years prior to 2011. Zaloudek was required each year to provide payroll audit information to CompSource. The audit information was used to determine the proper premium for each year. CompSource sent a notice in late 2010 to Zaloudek requesting audit information. In January, 2011, Zaloudek's policy was renewed for all of 2011 through January 1, 2012. On January 18, 2011, CompSource sent another letter requesting Zaloudek provide the necessary payroll audit information, but Zaloudek was unresponsive. Subsequently, CompSource sent Zaloudek a notification to inform the company that the process of canceling its policy would begin if CompSource did not receive the audit information. The audit information was not provided; CompSource ultimately canceled the policy when Zaloudek ignored several subsequent requests. CompSource issued a refund for payments made under the policy. Later that summer, two teenage workers were seriously injured in the grain auger at Zaloudek's facility. CompSource did not accept the company's new insurance application because it was incomplete and was not signed by an owner of Zaloudek. Zaloudek sued a few weeks following the rejection of its application, asking for a judgment against CompSource for breach of contract and bad faith and further requested declaratory relief in the form of an order requiring CompSource to provide workers' compensation coverage. Zaloudek filed a motion for summary judgment claiming CompSource lacked legal justification for terminating its policy and requested orders to establish there was no lapse in coverage and requiring CompSource to provide coverage for its two injured employees. Zaloudek further requested a finding that CompSource was in breach of contract. CompSource moved for summary judgment, arguing Zaloudek was not covered at the time of the incident and its policy was properly canceled. Zaloudek filed a counter-motion for summary judgment asserting CompSource should be estopped from denying coverage because it retained premiums and acted in a manner toward Zaloudek consistent with continued coverage. The trial court issued an order dismissing Zaloudek's bad faith claim but left pending its claims for breach of contract and declaratory relief. CompSource appealed. After its review, the Supreme Court concluded that CompSource was authorized to cancel a policy for an insured's failure to participate in the audit. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings on the other contract issues raised. View "Zaloudek Grain Co. v. CompSource Oklahoma" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether the workers' compensation courts had the authority to hear a petition filed by Insured to determine whether Insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify Insured under a policy for workers' compensation insurance. Insurer moved to dismiss Insured's petition, arguing that the compensation judge did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the petition because it asserted a breach of contract claim rather than one arising under the workers' compensation laws. The compensation judge disagreed and denied Insurer's motion to dismiss. The workers' compensation court of appeals (WCCA) affirmed, concluding that Insured was seeking a declaration that its insurance coverage with Insurer was still "in effect," a question within the compensation judge's authority to decide. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the workers' compensation courts had jurisdiction to decide the issues presented in Insured's petition for declaration of insurance coverage, as the real nature of the claim was whether Insured's insurance coverage was in effect, a question that was within the authority of the compensation judge to answer. View "Giersdorf v. A & M Constr., Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant Jay Warren appealed an order that denied his Rule 55(c) and Rule 60(b)(1), SCRCP motions, as well as his independent motion to set aside a judgment sale. On appeal, he contested only the denial of his motion to set aside. Warren is a state bail bondsman, and Respondent Arrow Bonding Company is also in the bond business. Warren agreed to be responsible if a mutual client forfeited a surety bond issued by Respondent. In October 2006, Respondent obtained a $5,120.00 judgment against Warren after the client forfeited. In August 2007, the clerk issued a Judgment Execution, and on September 19, 2007, the sheriff issued an Execution Account Statement. In this statement, he reported receiving a $1,000 payment from Warren, from which he deducted his $52.50 fee, leaving $947.50 to be applied against the debt. After deducting the $947.50 and adding the interest accrued as of September 19, 2007, Warren's judgment debt stood at $4,705.15. In January 2008, Respondent brought an action to foreclose its judgment lien. Warren did not answer, and the clerk granted Respondent's motions, ordering entry of the default against Warren, and referring the matter to the Master-in-Equity. On the sales day, Warren went to the sheriff's office and tendered the amount due under the original judgment, not the amount then due in light of the accumulated interest and other fees. The Master issued a deed to Respondent, who bought all of Warren's properties, which were sold at the sale as a single lot, leaving a deficiency. Warren filed a motion to set aside the default order under Rule 55(c) and/or Rule 60(b), and to set aside the foreclosure deed. The Master denied all relief requested, and denied the request to reconsider his decision. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that the Master did not err in refusing to set aside the sale or by selling the properties as a single lot. View "Arrow Bonding Company v. Warren" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from a dispute over the proper calculation of royalty payments on state oil and gas leases. Over the years, the Legislature has enacted several versions of the statutory oil and gas lease, and Lessees have entered into “hundreds” of oil and gas leases with the State. Specifically, the New Mexico Legislature enacted statutory oil and gas leases in 1919, 1925, 1927, 1929, 1931, 1945, 1947 and 1984. This appeal concerned the royalty clauses contained in the 1931 and the 1947 statutory lease forms. Both the 1931 lease and 1947 lease specified that the payment of royalty was to be calculated as a percentage of the “net proceeds” resulting from the sale of gas. During 2005 and 2006 Commissioner audited ConocoPhillips Company and Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company’s royalty payments. Following the Audit, Commissioner notified Lessees that they had been underpaying their royalty obligations and issued them assessments for the underpayment. The Commissioner claimed that pursuant to the terms of the statutory lease forms Lessees could not deduct the post-production costs necessary to prepare the gas for the commercial market when calculating their royalty payments. Commissioner claimed that the improper deductions for post-production costs resulted in ConocoPhillips underpaying royalties by approximately $18.9 million and Burlington underpaying by approximately $5.6 million. In response to Commissioner’s audit and assessments, Lessees filed a complaint in the district court seeking a declaration that Commissioner’s assessment of additional royalty constituted a deprivation of due process, an unconstitutional impairment of contract, and breach of contract. In addition, Lessees claimed that Commissioner had exceeded his constitutional and statutory powers by issuing the assessments and had effectively usurped legislative power by seeking royalty payments under calculation methods not approved by the Legislature. In response, Commissioner alleged a host of counterclaims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of the implied covenant to market. This appeal pertained to three orders granting summary judgment on behalf of Lessees and a fourth order denying Commissioner’s motion for reconsideration of the district court’s previous dismissal of his counterclaim for breach of the implied covenant to market. In the first order, the district court granted Lessees’ motion for summary judgment. Upon review of the several orders and claims before the Supreme Court on appeal, the Court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment. View "ConocoPhillips Co. v. Lyons" on Justia Law

Strata Corporation and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company appealed a partial summary judgment dismissing Liberty Mutual's subrogation claim against United Crane & Excavation, Inc., after the district court certified the partial summary judgment as final under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Because this case did not represent the "infrequent harsh case for immediate appeal and subsequent proceedings in the district court may moot the issue raised on appeal," the district court improvidently certified the partial summary judgment as final and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. View "City of Mandan v. Strata Corp." on Justia Law

Whiteman was employed by the FAA and reported violations of regulations, mismanagement, and abuses of authority. Whiteman alleged that colleagues and supervisors began to threaten and intimidate her. She filed EEO actions and reported one incident to police. She was excluded from the radar room and stripped of duties, then reassigned to the control tower instead of her previous job. In 2003, Whiteman settled with the FAA resolving all claims, “known or unknown” in exchange for guaranteed priority consideration for the next available supervisor position. December 9, 2003, Whiteman applied for a position. No other applicants were considered. December 18, 2003, the FAA adopted pay scale changes, which reduced the salary of the position. Whiteman accepted the position, but sued, alleging that the FAA’s delay in notifying her of the vacancy breached the settlement agreement and caused loss of earnings. The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Whiteman appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board contending that the FAA had unlawfully retaliated against her for whistleblowing. The Board concluded that the claim was barred. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part. The MSPB incorrectly concluded that Whiteman’s post-settlement retaliation claim was collaterally estopped, but its conclusion that the settlement agreement is enforceable is supported by substantial evidence. View "Whiteman v. Dep't of Transp." on Justia Law

The City of New Orleans filed suit against BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC, claiming that the company owed it additional compensation for the use of its public rights-of-way. The district court rejected the City's claims for additional compensation pursuant to the various contracts between the parties. The court, however, awarded the City $1.5 million in unjust enrichment damages to compensate the City for benefits the company had received from its use of the City's rights-of-way. Both parties appealed. The City then enacted an ordinance to force BellSouth to continue compensating the City in future years for the unjust enrichment identified by the district court. BellSouth moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the City from enforcing the ordinance, which the district court denied. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (1) affirmed the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, in part, to the extent the court rejected the City's claims for damages; and (2) reversed and vacated the district court's judgment awarding unjust enrichment damages to the City, holding that BellSouth had justification in contract for any enrichment it was enjoying from its use of the City's rights-of-way. Remanded with instructions to permanently enjoin enforcement of the City's ordinance. View "City of New Orleans v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc." on Justia Law