Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Thomas Warner filed a complaint against Robert and Rebecca Hanke for conversion and negligence after Robert Hanke asserted ownership over some personal property Warner was storing on the Hanke's property. At the time the action was filed, Robert and Rebecca Hankes maintained home insurance coverage from a subsidiary of Horace Mann Insurance Company. The Hankes filed a claim with Horace Mann to request a defense against Warner's suit. Horace Mann filed a declaratory judgment action requesting a determination whether the insurance policy required Horace Mann to defend the Hankes. The district court concluded that Horace Mann did not owe coverage to the Hankes for the Warner dispute. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding that the district court (1) properly determined that the Hankes' insurance policy failed to cover the Warner dispute; (2) correctly determined that Horace Mann's decisions to provide a defense and to pay the settlement of Warner's claims nevertheless allowed Horace Mann to pursue reimbursement for the Hankes' share of the settlement; and (3) abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to Horace Mann. View "Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Hanke" on Justia Law

Defendants, an attorney and a law firm, structured a tax-deferred exchange for Plaintiffs, a husband and wife and the cattle ranch they owned. It was later determined that the exchange did not qualify for deferred tax treatment under 26 U.S.C. 1031, resulting in significant tax liability for Plaintiffs. Defendants filed an action against Defendants for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and misrepresentation. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants on all claims on grounds that Plaintiffs' claims were time barred. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Plaintiffs' tort claims were timely filed, and the issue of whether Plaintiffs' timely filed their misrepresentation claim was a question of material fact to be resolved by a jury; (2) Plaintiffs properly stated a claim for breach of contract and the claim was not time barred; and (3) the district court erred in granting Defendants a protection order to prevent discovery of alleged work product and attorney-client communications, as further analysis and fact finding were necessary to determine which documents were discoverable and which qualified for work product or attorney-client protection. Remanded. View "Draggin' Y Cattle Co., Inc. v. Addink" on Justia Law

C.R. Weaver formed Mikart Transport, LLC in January 2011. At that time, the articles of organization named Weaver and Michael Smith as members or managers. In March 2011, Smith submitted a credit application with Tri-County Implement, Inc. After Smith failed to pay Tri-County for work it performed on two vehicles, including a Volvo semi-truck titled in Weaver's name, Tri-County refused to release the Volvo from its possession pursuant to its asserted agisters' lien on the vehicle. Weaver subsequently filed a complaint against Tri-County. In response, Tri-County filed a counterclaim against Weaver and a third-party complaint against Mikart. The district court entered judgment against Mikart, ordering it to pay for the work it performed, and awarded Tri-County attorney fees and costs. The court also held Mikart, Smith, and Weaver jointly and severally liable for these amounts. The Supreme Court reversed the portion of the district court's imposition of personal liability on Weaver for the work performed on the two vehicles, as there was no basis to hold Weaver individually liable for the obligations of Mikart to Tri-County. Remanded. View "Tri-County Implement, Inc. v. Weaver" on Justia Law

Dannix, a commercial painting contractor, filed suit against SWC alleging that SWC negligently misrepresented that a certain paint product SWC sold was appropriate for a particular painting project. The court concluded that the district court did not err in deciding that Missouri's economic loss doctrine precluded Dannix's negligent misrepresentation claim. The economic loss doctrine prohibited a commercial buyer of goods from seeking to recover in tort for economic losses that were contractual in nature. The court also concluded that the district court correctly dismissed Dannix's misrepresentation complaint where the complaint did not set forth any allegations of property damage to surfaces Dannix painted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Dannix's complaint. View "Dannix Painting v. Sherwin-Williams Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the owner of an apartment building, complained when Armory Plaza, the owner of the lot next to Plaintiff's building, began excavating the lot to make way for a new building. The excavation purportedly caused cracks in the walls and foundations of Plaintiff's building. After Plaintiff's insurer (Defendant) rejected Plaintiff's claims under its policy, Plaintiff brought suit. The U.S. district court granted summary judgment for Defendant, holding that the alleged conduct of Armory and its contractors was not "vandalism" within the meaning of the policy. On appeal, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals certified two questions of law to the New York Court of Appeals, which answered by holding (1) for purposes of construing a property insurance policy covering acts of vandalism, malicious damage may be found to result from an act not directed specifically at the covered property; and (2) the state of mind required to find malicious damage is a conscious and deliberate disregard of the interests of others that the conduct in question may be called willful or wanton. View "Georgitsi Realty, LLC v. Penn-Star Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Appellants purchased property that was subject to a Master Plan that restricted the use and development of the property. Appellants obtained title insurance from Insurer, but the policy did not mention the Master Plan. Appellants only later learned of the Master Plan when they were informed they were in violation of the Master Plan and faced substantial penalties if they failed to comply with the Plan. Appellants sued Insurer, claiming a breach of the terms of the title insurance policy, negligence, and bad faith. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Insurer on all claims brought in Appellants' complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in entering judgment in favor of Insurer. View "Sonnett v. First Am. Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

YA, a nonprofit corporation serving at-risk youth, transported young people to an event using vans that it owned. After the event four people were unable to board because a van was full. A YA employee requested that 16-year-old Lee, a YA participant who had driven to the event in a separate vehicle, drive them home. Lee agreed. Lee did not possess a valid driver’s license and the car that he was driving had been stolen during a carjacking. Police saw Lee driving erratically, ran a license plate check, and gave chase. Lee lost control and hit a tree. Lee survived, but all four passengers were killed. Their estates filed suit. YA requested defense and indemnification under policies issued by Indemnity: a commercial general liability policy with a $1 million limit and a commercial excess liability policy with a $2 million limit. Indemnity provided a defense, but disputed coverage and sought a federal declaratory judgment. YA counterclaimed that Indemnity breached its duty of good faith and violated the Kentucky Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, by misrepresenting coverage and failing to affirm liability within a reasonable time. The district court held that Indemnity was obligated under the CGL policy but not under the excess policy. The state court action settled with Indemnity’s payment of the $1 million limit of the CGL policy, plus $800,000 of the excess policy. The federal court dismissed the bad-faith counterclaims, reasoning that, as a matter of law, Indemnity’s coverage position had not been taken in bad faith. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co. v. Youth Alive, Inc." on Justia Law

The party to an exclusive marketing, license, and distribution agreement (licensee) brought contract and tort claims in California against the other parties to that agreement and their affiliated companies (licensors). The defendants in that action, including the licensors, were the plaintiffs in this action. Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that the agreement was properly terminated and injunctive relief relating to the agreement's confidentiality and termination provisions. Defendant asserted counterclaims for breach of contract, among other claims. The Court of Chancery awarded the licensee damages against the licensors, their parent, and a sister company, holding (1) those plaintiffs who were parties to the agreement breached the non-compete provision of that agreement or the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and those plaintiffs and a sister company were liable in tort for tortious interference with contract; (2) the additional named plaintiffs were not liable in contract or tort; (3) the agreement was properly terminated, and Defendant was required to comply with the agreement's termination and confidentiality provisions; and (4) both parties' requests for attorneys' fees were denied. View "eCommerce Indus., Inc. v. MWA Intelligence, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Kylie and Michael D. Shuba appealed the Superior Court's denial of their cross-motion for summary judgment and its grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant United Services Automobile Association's ("USAA") motion for summary judgment. The Shuba's sought to be covered persons for the wrongful death of their mother under an insurance policy issued by USAA and held by the Shubas' step-mother. It was undisputed that their mother was not a named insured under the policy or a resident of the stepmother's household as the Shubas were. The Shubas claimed the trial court erred in finding the Shubas could not recover uninsured motorist benefits under the USAA policy. In making their claim, the Shubas asked the Supreme Court to overrule two Superior Court cases, "Temple v. Travelers Indemnity Co" and "Adams-Baez v. General Accident Co.," the latter of which the Supreme Court affirmed based on the trial court opinion. The Supreme Court declined to overrule those cases as precedent, and affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. View "Shuba v. United Services Automobile Association" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform oil spill. On appeal, BP challenged the district court's decision upholding the Claims Administrator's interpretation of the settlement agreement between it and the class of parties injured in the oil spill and the district court's dismissal of its action for breach of contract against the Administrator and denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction. The court concluded that the balance of equities favored a tailored stay where those who experienced actual injury traceable to loss from the Deepwater Horizon accident continued to receive recovery but those who did not receive their payments until this case was fully heard and decided through the judicial process weighed in favor of BP. Accordingly, the court reversed the denial of the preliminary injunction and instructed the district court to expeditiously craft a narrowly-tailored injunction that allowed the time necessary for deliberate reconsideration of significant issues on remand. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of BP's suit against the Claim Administrator. View "In Re: Deepwater Horizon" on Justia Law