Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Sysdyne Corporation and Xigent Solutions, LLC provide staff augmentation services to companies in the engineering and information industries. When Brian Rousslang, a former employee of Sysdyne Corporation who was subject to a noncompete agreement, obtained employment with Xigent Solutions, LLC, Sysdyne sued Xigent for tortious interference with contract and sued Rousslang for breach of contract. The trial court (1) awarded damages to Sysdyne on its breach of contract claim with respect to certain preexisting customers Rousslang brought with him from Sysdyne to Xigent; but (2) ruled in favor of Xigent on the tortious interference claim, concluding that Xigent was justified in interfering with the contract because Xigent conducted a reasonable inquiry into the enforceability of the noncompete agreement and, based on advice of outside counsel, honestly believed that the agreement was unenforceable. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the justification defense to a claim of tortious interference with a contract may be satisfied by a defendant’s reliance on incorrect advice of outside counsel; and (2) under the facts of this case, the trial court did not err in concluding that Xigent met its burden of proving the justification defense. View "Sysdyne Corp. v. Rousslang" on Justia Law

Covol Fuels No. 4, LLC (Covol) and Pinnacle Mining Co., LLC (Pinnacle) were parties to a business agreement - a fully integrated contract - wherein Covol conducted coal fines recovery operations at Pinnacle’s mine in Wyoming County, West Virginia. Covol was authorized to unilaterally terminate the contract if its operations became economically unfeasible. After it became economically unfeasible for Covol to continue in the business, Covol initiated this action, alleging four claims. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Pinnacle as to all claims. Covol appealed, contending that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on its breach of contract claim and on its tort claims. The Fourth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) genuine issues of material fact existed with respect to Covol’s breach of contract claim that a jury must decide; and (2) Covol’s tort claims were barred by the “gist of the action doctrine.” View "Covol Fuels No. 4, LLC v. Pinnacle Mining Co., LLC" on Justia Law

Synergy4 Enterprises, Inc. brought an action against Pinnacle Bank on claims of promissory estoppel, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud, alleging that Pinnacle Bank caused damages by orally assuring Synergy4 that Pinnacle would provide a $1 million credit line and then only providing $400,000 provided for in a commitment letter. The district court sustained Pinnacle’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Synergy4’s claims were barred by Nebraska’s credit agreement statute of frauds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Synergy4’s claims were based on a credit agreement that was not in writing, they were barred by Nebraska’s credit agreement statute of frauds. View "Synergy4 Enters., Inc. v. Pinnacle Bank" on Justia Law

Entergy Arkansas, Inc. and Entergy Operations, Inc. (collectively, “Entergy”) entered into an agreement with Siemens Energy, Inc. (“Siemens”) under which Siemens was to provide Entergy with services at three nuclear facilities. The agreement included an arbitration provision. Pursuant to the agreement, Entergy and Siemens agreed that Siemens would replace a large component of a generator at Entergy’s Arkansas Nuclear One (“ANO”) facility. Siemens had a separate, long-term agreement with Bigge Crane and Rigging Co. and Claus Frederiksen (collectively, “Bigge”) under which Bigge would prove crane services for Siemens at ANO. After a crane built and operated by Bigge collapsed at ANO, killing one person, injuring ten others, and causing significant damages to ANO, Entergy filed suit against Bigge and others, alleging several tort claims. Bigge moved to compel arbitration of Entergy’s claims against Bigge as a purported third-party beneficiary of the agreement between Entergy and Siemens. The circuit court denied Bigge’s motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in concluding (1) that, under the facts of this case, issues of arbitrability were matters for judicial determination; and (2) that Bigge could not invoke arbitration. View "Bigge Crane & Rigging Co. v. Entergy Ark. Inc." on Justia Law

Phillip Khalil was employed with Front, Inc. for approximately seven years. Khalil later informed Front that he intended to resign to take a position with Eckersley O’Callaghan Structural Design (EOC), one of Front’s competitors. Front, however, terminated Khalil’s employment upon discovering that he worked on several side projects for Front’s competitors, including EOC, in violation of the terms of his employment contract. Front retained Meister Seelig & Fein LLP (MSF), whose attorney sent a letter to Khalil making certain demands. The attorey then sent a letter to EOC making demands nearly identical to those made in the letter to Khalil. Khalil and EOC failed to comply with Front’s demands. Front subsequently commenced an action against Khalil and EOC alleging, inter alia, civil conspiracy and misappropriation of trade secrets. Khalil commenced a third-party action against MSF and its attorney (collectively, MSF), asserting a cause of action for libel per se based upon statements made by MSF in its letter to Khalil. Supreme Court determined that the letter to Khalil was absolutely privileged and dismissed the third-party action against MSF. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because the letters were written in the preliminary stages of an anticipated action, they were properly subject to a qualified privilege. View "Front, Inc. v. Khalil" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the largely fraudulent lending operations of First United Funding, LLC (First United). After First United collapsed, a court-appointed Receiver commenced this action under Minnesota’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (MUFTA) against several financial institutions, including Alliance Bank and certain Respondent Banks, that had participated in First United’s loan-participation scheme. The district court (1) dismissed the claims against the Respondent Banks for failure to bring the action in a timely fashion, and (2) allowed the claim against Alliance Bank, concluding that that the Receiver had pleaded legally sufficient claims based on a “Ponzi-scheme presumption.” The district court then entered judgment against Alliance Bank. The Receiver and Alliance Bank appealed. The court of appeals (1) divided the Ponzi-scheme presumption into three separate components and concluded that the third component was unfounded in the case of Alliance Bank; and (2) concluded that the district court erred when it dismissed the Receiver’s actual-fraud claims against the Respondent Banks. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) all three components of the Ponzi-scheme presumption lack support in MUFTA; and (2) the Receiver failed to adequately plead constructive fraud, but the district court erred when it dismissed the Receiver’s actual fraud claims. Remanded. View "Finn v. Alliance Bank" on Justia Law

Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company ("Travelers") appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Dianne and Martin Gray in the Grays' action arising from injuries Dianne suffered as the result of a motor-vehicle accident. In 2010, Lawana Coker and Dianne were involved in a motor-vehicle accident in Elmore County; Coker was without motor-vehicle insurance at the time of the accident. Two years later, the Grays filed in the trial court a three-count complaint naming as defendants Coker and Travelers and a fictitiously named defendant. Travelers answered the complaint, denying the material allegations therein and asserting certain affirmative defenses. Coker, however, failed to answer the complaint. In 2013, the Grays moved the trial court to enter a default judgment in their favor and against Coker, requesting that the trial court assess damages in the amount of $500,000 for Dianne and $50,000 for Martin. The Grays' motion requested no relief as to Travelers. Shortly thereafter, the Grays filed a new summary-judgment motion in which, for the first time, they sought relief against Travelers. The Grays did not base their summary judgment motion against Travelers on the ground that there was no genuine issue of fact as to whether tortious conduct by Coker caused them to suffer injury. Instead, they based their summary-judgment motion against Travelers solely on the fact that they previously had obtained a default judgment against Coker. In this regard, the Grays argued that they were entitled to a judgment as a matter of law against Travelers because, they said, "Travelers as a party defendant had notice and adequate opportunity to intervene and present any defenses and arguments necessary to protect its position with respect to the entry of or the amount of damages in the Default Judgment. By failing to do so, Defendant Travelers legally is bound by the judgment." After review, the Supreme Court reversed: because Travelers as the Grays' UM carrier, was not bound by the default judgment entered against Coker, Travelers was not required to submit evidence in opposition to a motion for a summary judgment that relied solely on that default judgment. Consequently, the trial court erred in entering a summary judgment in favor of the Grays and against Travelers. View "Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co. v. Gray" on Justia Law

Give Kids the World, Inc. is a non-profit organization that provides free vacations to seriously ill children and their families at its resort village. Stacy and Eric Sanislo were vacationing at the village with their seriously ill child when Stacy sustained injuries. The Sanislos brought this negligence action against Give Kids the World. Give Kids the World moved for summary judgment on its affirmative defense that the Sanislos signed releases that precluded an action for negligence. The trial court denied the motion. After a jury trial, judgment was entered in favor of the Sanislos. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment, concluding that an exculpatory clause in the liability release form signed by the Sanislos was effective to bar the negligence action despite the absence of express language referring to release of Give Kids the World for its own negligence or negligent acts. The Supreme Court approved of the Fifth District’s decision, holding that the absence of the terms “negligence” or “negligent acts” in an exculpatory clause does not render the agreement per se ineffective to bar a negligence action. View "Sanislo v. Give Kids The World, Inc." on Justia Law

Footstar operated the footwear departments in various Kmart stores as though they were islands. Footstar employees could only work in those departments unless they had written permission from Kmart. In 2005, a Footstar employee tried to help a customer get an infant carrier off a shelf outside the footwear department and the customer was injured. She sued. Kmart sought indemnification from Footstar and its insurer, Liberty Mutual. A magistrate judge found that Footstar and Liberty Mutual both had a duty to defend beginning the day Kmart formally requested coverage since the injury was potentially coverable under the agreement between Kmart and Footstar and the insurance policy. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that neither Liberty Mutual nor Footstar had a duty to indemnify Kmart because the injury did not occur “pursuant to” or “under” the agreement between Kmart and Footstar. That agreement specifically precluded Footstar employees from working outside of the footwear department, where the injury occurred, and actions taken in contravention of the agreement were not “pursuant to” or “under” it. Liberty Mutual did not deny coverage in bad faith and that Kmart did not breach the relevant notice provisions such that Liberty Mutual and Footstar could withhold defense costs. View "Kmart Corp. v. Footstar, Inc." on Justia Law

An adult passenger in a car was injured in a single-car accident. The passenger and his family brought suit against the vehicle’s unlicensed minor driver, the minor’s mother, the owner of the car, the insurance policy holder, the insurer, and the insurance adjuster who handled the claims arising from the accident. The passenger’s father attempted to raise a contractual interference claim, but the superior court concluded that the complaint did not state such a claim on his behalf. The superior court dismissed the father’s only other claim (intentional infliction of emotional distress), removed the father’s name from the case caption, and ordered the father to cease filing pleadings on behalf of other parties. After the superior court judge dismissed him from the action, the passenger’s father attempted to file a first amended complaint, which expressly stated his contractual interference claim on the theory that he was a third-party beneficiary of the contracts between his son and his son’s doctors. But the superior court denied the father leave to amend the complaint because the father had already been dismissed from the case. Following a settlement among all of the other plaintiffs and defendants (which the father did not join) the superior court granted final judgment to the insurer. The insurer moved for attorney’s fees against the father under Alaska Civil Rule 82, but the father never responded to that motion. The superior court granted the award without soliciting a response from the father, and the father appealed. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s order dismissing the father’s claims and denying leave to amend the complaint because the proposed first amended complaint was futile. But because the superior court had barred the father from filing any further pleadings in the case and had removed his name from the caption, the superior court had a responsibility to inform the self-represented father that he was permitted to file an opposition to the motion for attorney’s fees. Therefore, the Court vacated the fee award and remanded the case to the superior court to afford the father an opportunity to respond to the insurer’s motion for reasonable attorney’s fees. View "Bush v. Elkins" on Justia Law