Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff Marnita Goddard was injured while riding on a trolley operated by the city of Deadwood, South Dakota. Invoking diversity jurisdiction, Goddard sued the city for negligence and the South Dakota Public Assurance Alliance (SDPAA) for uninsured motorist coverage. After Goddard settled with the city, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of SDPAA, concluding that Goddard was not covered under the uninsured motorist provision in the city's agreement with SDPAA. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Goddard had not shown she was entitled to coverage under the uninsured motorist provision of the SDPAA agreement. View "Goddard v. S.D. Pub. Assurance Alliance" on Justia Law

Ronske’s widow sued Heil after a dump truck body it manufactured caused Ronske’s death. Heil held a commercial general liability policy. Evanston insured the first $1 million loss in excess of $500,000 self-insured retention. Heil was required to defend, investigate, and accept any reasonable settlement offer within the SIR; Evanston could choose to assume charge of defense and settlement. Heil retained attorney Pelini. After more than two years, Evanston wanted to assume defense and appointed Sutter, with Pelini to remain involved. Pelini’s fees would count toward exhaustion of the SIR, and Evanston would pay Pelini’s fees in excess of the SIR. The parties settled for $5,711,000. Evanston paid $1 million, leaving Heil responsible for $4,711,000 and $63,533.79 in fees and costs in excess of its SIR. Evanston declined to pay fees and costs. A jury found that Evanston breached the contract and refused in bad faith to pay amounts owed under the policy, but did not fail to settle the wrongful death action in bad faith, awarded Heil compensatory damages plus prejudgment interest for breach of contract, $15,883.44 in statutory damages for bad faith refusal to pay, and $2 million punitive damages. The Sixth Circuit vacated the $2 million punitive damages award, but affirmed the finding of liability under state law. View "Heil Co. v. Evanston Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-Appellants Wayne and Sandra Masloskie sued real estate agent G. Pat Baldwin and Century 21 American Real Estate Inc. on a number of causes of action including actual fraud. Baldwin and Century 21 moved for summary judgment, arguing that all causes of action were barred by statutes of limitation governing realtor malpractice. The circuit court granted summary judgment dismissing all claims. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their cause of action for fraud. Because that cause of action was subject to a longer statute of limitations, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded that portion of the judgment. View "Masloskie v. Century 21 American Real Estate, Inc." on Justia Law

Sweeney owned a transmission shop and referred customers to Tradewell, who owned a nearby car rental business. Sweeney would sometimes simply refer customers to Tradewell or drive them to Tradewell’s business. If employees were available, Tradewell would have them take a car to Sweeney’s shop. Sweeney would sometimes pick up a car from Tradewell and deliver it to the customer and would occasionally use the car for personal errands. This was encouraged by Tradewell, who asked Sweeney to make sure the cars were running properly. In 2004 Sweeney, returning from a personal errand, was injured in an accident while driving a car owned by Tradewell that was intended for delivery to a customer the following morning. Sweeney sought underinsured motorist benefits pursuant to his policy with Liberty. Liberty sought a declaration that Sweeney was not entitled to coverage. On remand, the district court granted Liberty summary judgment, finding that “intended use” and “regular use” provisions did not bar coverage, but Liberty could deny coverage based on the “auto business” provision. The Third Circuit reversed, in favor of Sweeney, noting that Sweeney was on a personal errand, not engaged in “auto business” and did not have unfettered use of the cars. View "Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sweeney" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted leave in two cases to address the question whether a person injured while driving a motor vehicle that the person had taken contrary to the express prohibition of the owner may avail himself or herself of personal protection insurance benefits (PIP benefits) under the no-fault act, notwithstanding the fact that MCL 500.3113(a) bars a person from receiving PIP benefits for injuries suffered while using a vehicle that he or she "had taken unlawfully, unless the person reasonably believed that he or she was entitled to take and use the vehicle." Upon review, the Supreme Court held that any person who takes a vehicle contrary to a provision of the Michigan Penal Code (including MCL 750.413 and MCL 750.414, the "joyriding" statutes) has taken the vehicle unlawfully for purposes of MCL 500.3113(a). Furthermore, the Court held that the use of the phrase "a person" in MCL 500.3113(a) "clearly and plainly" includes a family member who has taken a vehicle unlawfully, thereby precludes that person from receiving PIP benefits. View "Spectrum Health Hospitals v. Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co. of Michigan" on Justia Law

The issues before the Supreme Court in this case was whether the services provided by plaintiff's wife constituted services "for an injured person's care," whether the Court of Appeals properly remanded this case to the circuit court for findings of fact regarding the extent to which expenses for services for plaintiff's care were actually incurred, and whether the circuit court erred by awarding an hourly rate that corporate agencies charge for rendering services, rather than an hourly rate that individual caregivers receive for those services. Upon review, the Court held that "allowable expenses" must be "for an injured person's care, recovery, or rehabilitation." Because the Michigan no-fault act does not create different standards depending on who provides the services, this requirement applies equally to services that a family member provides and services that an unrelated caregiver provides. For this case, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals correctly determined that plaintiff may recover "allowable expenses" to the extent that they encompass services that are reasonably necessary for plaintiff's care when the care is "related to [plaintiff's] injuries." However, because the circuit court erred by awarding damages for allowable expenses without requiring proof that the underlying charges were actually incurred, the Court agreed with the decision of the Court of Appeals to remand this case to the circuit court for a determination whether charges for allowable expenses were actually incurred. In determining the hourly rate for attendant care services, the circuit court "clearly erred" by ruling that plaintiff was entitled to an hourly rate of $40 for attendant care services because that rate was entirely inconsistent with the evidence of an individual's rate of compensation, including the compensation that plaintiff's wife, actually received as an employee hired to care for plaintiff. The case was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. View "Douglas v. Allstate Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Fernandes injured his back when he stepped into a hole in the floor of a tire "shed," an old shipping container, which was on property leased by AGAR to Fernandes's employer, Penske Truck Leasing. He sued AGAR on the theory that it owed him a duty of care to maintain and repair the tire shed under the lease. The district court granted summary judgment to AGAR under Massachusetts law. The First Circuit affirmed, finding that, under the lease, Agar had no duty to repair or maintain the shed. View "Fernandes v. Agar Supply Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs purchased a house from Defendant, who built the house. Plaintiffs later discovered mold in some of the windows and walls and sued Defendant. The jury found in favor of Plaintiffs on their negligence claim but found in favor of Defendant on Plaintiffs' negligent misrepresentation claim. The jury also found that Plaintiffs failed to perform all, or substantially all, of the things the contract required them to do and therefore the jury did not reach the question of whether Defendant breached the contract. The Supreme Court held (1) the economic loss rule prevented recovery of economic damages within the scope of the parties' contract but allowed for recovery of damages to other property or for bodily injury; (2) the trial court did not err when it permitted Dr. Eugene Cole to testify as an expert witness; (3) because Defendant prevailed in his claims under the contract, which provided the only basis for awarding attorney fees, he was entitled to recover attorney fees for the breach of contract suit; and (4) the trial court did not err when it denied Plaintiffs' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Remanded.

The issue in this case arose from a judgment which held that a "Designated Project or Premises" endorsement of a commercial general liability insurance policy purchased by a sporting goods store excluded coverage for a claim arising out of the sale of improperly reloaded ammunition. Petitioner Tom Erekson purchased a used .500 revolver from a sporting goods store, along with three boxes of handloaded ammunition, all of which the store purchased from the gun's previous owner. Erekson and his sons took the revolver to a shooting range, loaded five chambers with the reloaded ammunition, and fired. The one cartridge discharged, but two others detonated simultaneously. When the cartridge under the loading gate detonated, it sheared off the gate, a portion of the cartridge rocketed rearward, and struck Erekson in the forehead, lodging three inches into his brain. He also lost a portion of his thumb. The store held a general liability policy through Markel International Insurance Company. The store brought suit for a court order to declare Erekson's injuries were covered under the policy. The district court held that the injury was excluded; Erekson unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration. Upon review of the policy, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding coverage was excluded under the endorsement.

Patrick McGinness, driving a vehicle owned by his adult daughter, negligently struck and injured Marie DeMeo. DeMeo obtained a $350,000 state-court judgment against McGinness. McGinness's daughter's insurer, American Family Insurance Company, paid its $100,000 policy limit under an owner's liability policy that covered McGinness as a permitted driver. State Farm insured McGinness under four liability policies issued for the cars he owed. Each policy provided coverage to McGinness when operating a non-owned vehicle such as his daughter's. Invoking the policies' "anti-stacking" provisions, State Farm paid the per-person limit of one policy, $50,000. De Meo filed this action to recover an additional $150,000, the combined limits of the other three policies. The district court held that the anti-stacking provisions did not conflict with Missouri's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act (MVFRL) requirements, which mandate that motor vehicle owners and operates maintain minimum levels of financial responsibility for damages arising out of their ownership or use of a motor vehicle, and granted summary judgment in State Farm's favor. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that there was no basis to conclude that the MVFRL demands stacking when there are multiple policies.