Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

In the underlying federal court action, an auto insurer (Insurer) sought a declaratory judgment that it had validly denied Insured's underinsured motorist (UIM) claim. Insured was injured while a passenger on a motorcycle driven by her husband, who had a motorcycle insurance policy with Insurer. Insured counterclaimed for breach of contract and bad faith. The U.S. district court certified several questions to the state Supreme Court. The Court held (1) Ariz. Rev. Stat. 20-259.01(G) required Insurer to provide UIM coverage for Insured under the auto policy, where Insured's total damages exceeded the amount of her tort recovery from her husband under the husband's motorcycle policy; and (2) Ariz. Rev. Stat. 20-259.01(H) did not permit Insurer to refuse to provide Insured with UIM coverage under her auto policy because she was partially indemnified as a claimant under the liability coverage of the separate motorcycle policy issued by Insurer to Insured's husband, whose negligence contributed to Insured's injuries.

Cassadie and Chris Parish were injured in a motor vehicle accident when their vehicle was struck by an uninsured driver. United Financial Casualty Insurance Company (UFC) provided insurance coverage to the Parishes, including uninsured motorist (UM) coverage. The Parishes, who had two vehicles insured on their UFC policy at the time of the accident, argued they should be permitted to stack the UM benefits provided in their policy. UFC refused, stating that the Parishes' policy did not allow stacking. The Parishes sued seeking declaratory judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of UFC. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting UFC's motion for summary judgment, as, inter alia, the policy was unambiguous and UFC's insurance agreement did not create a reasonable expectation of stacked UM coverage.

Tammy Pepper suffered injuries in a single-vehicle accident when she was struck by a pickup truck owned by her sister and driven by her stepfather. Pepper subsequently sought insurance benefits under three policies. First, Pepper sought and recovered liability benefits from her sister's insurer. Second, Pepper sought and recovered liability benefits from her stepfather's insurer, State Farm. Third, Pepper sought, but did not recover, underinsured motorist coverage under a separate State Farm policy held by her stepfather. State Farm denied that it owed Pepper underinsured motorist coverage under the stepfather's policy on the ground that the terms of that policy excluded the sister's truck from its definition of vehicles eligible for underinsured motorist coverage. The district court granted summary judgment to State Farm, concluding that the exclusion in the stepfather's policy was valid because the exclusion was designed to prevent coverage conversion. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court was correct that Pepper was not entitled to UIM benefits in this case.

In these consolidated cases, the primary issue was whether there was liability insurance coverage for Plaintiffs' injuries resulting from an altercation on the premises of Insured's bar and restaurant. Insurer denied coverage and declined to defend Insured based on its determination that there was no coverage under the terms of the policy. The trial court entered an order finding that the altercation was covered under both the commercial general liability and liquor liability provisions of the policy. The court of appeals ruled that the liquor liability coverage agreement provided coverage for the judgments but that the commercial general liability agreement provided no coverage. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) based on the clear terms of the policy agreement, there was no liability coverage because the incident arose from an assault and battery, which was an excluded cause, and because there was no nonexcluded concurrent cause to provide coverage; and (2) estoppel by judgment did not apply to collaterally estop Insurer from arguing the lack of coverage.

In these consolidated cases, the primary issue was whether there was liability insurance coverage for Plaintiffs' injuries resulting from an altercation on the premises of Insured's bar and restaurant. Insurer denied coverage and declined to defend Insured based on its determination that there was no coverage under the terms of the policy. The trial court entered an order finding that the altercation was covered under both the commercial general liability and liquor liability provisions of the policy. The court of appeals ruled that the liquor liability coverage agreement provided coverage for the judgments but that the commercial general liability agreement provided no coverage. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) based on the clear terms of the policy agreement, there was no liability coverage because the incident arose from an assault and battery, which was an excluded cause, and because there was no nonexcluded concurrent cause to provide coverage; and (2) estoppel by judgment did not apply to collaterally estop Insurer from arguing the lack of coverage.

Appellants appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of American Standard. The district court concluded that appellants were not entitled to recover underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage benefits under four American Standard policies because the tortfeasor's vehicle was not an "underinsured motor vehicle" under the policies' plain language. The court held that the district court correctly concluded that appellants were not entitled to recover under the UIM policies because stacking them did not result in an amount exceeding the tortfeasor's liability. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

This negligence and breach of contract action arose out of Plaintiff's fall in one of Defendant's stores. Plaintiff Maureen Habershaw appealed from the superior court's grant of a motion for summary judgment in favor of Defendant, Michaels Stores. At issue on appeal was whether an allegation that a floor was shiny, standing alone, could withstand a challenge to a claim that a plaintiff was injured as a result of a dangerous condition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the superior court did not err when it granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment because there was no issue of material fact about whether a dangerous condition existed at the time of Plaintiff's fall. To the contrary, the Court held, there was a complete absence of any evidence upon which Defendant's negligence could be established.

Appellants Warren and Wynne Kirschbaum appealed a trial court's ruling in favor of Appellee First Quality Carpets, Inc. arising from a dispute they had over carpet installed in 2007. The Kirschbaums argued that the civil division erred in awarding First Quality attorney's fees under 9 V.S.A. 4007(c) of the Prompt Pay Act because that section of the statute authorizing attorney's fees recovery effectively expired in 1996 pursuant to a sunset provision included in the Act. Alternatively, the Kirschbaums argued that because they withheld payment to First Quality in good faith, they were entitled to a directed verdict and that First Quality should not have been awarded attorney's fees under 4007(c). Finally, the Kirschbaums argued that the court erred in denying their counterclaim under the Consumer Fraud Act. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court in all respects.

Two appeals are were consolidated from chancery-court cases. In the first case, Diamondhead Country Club and Property Owners Association, Inc. sued Thomas R. Alfonso, III, and Anne Scafidi Cordova,1 d/b/a Bay Jourdan Publishing Co. (BJP) for breach of a contract to publish "The Diamondhead News." In 1997, the chancery court entered a preliminary injunction order preventing BJP from publishing "The Diamondhead News," selling advertising, collecting or disposing of advertising revenues derived from the publication the paper, and interfering with the printing, publication, or distribution of "The Diamondhead News." The chancery court also found that an arbitration clause in the publishing contract was inapplicable to the lawsuit. The chancery court denied BJP’s two subsequent motions to compel arbitration of the breach-of-contract dispute. BJP appealed the chancery court’s latest denial of arbitration. In the second case, BJP sued Diamondhead and Gulf Publishing Co., Inc., d/b/a "The Sun Herald" (“Gulf Publishing”), for intentional interference with the publishing contract. Gulf Publishing filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment to Gulf Publishing and directed the entry of a final judgment as to Gulf Publishing pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). BJP appealed the grant of summary judgment. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the chancery court’s order denying BJP’s third motion to compel arbitration because the issue was ruled upon previously, and no appeal was taken. Finding genuine issues of material fact for trial, the Court reversed the chancery court’s order granting summary judgment to Diamondhead and Gulf Publishing, and remanded the second case for further proceedings.

This insurance-coverage dispute arose after a driver of a leased vehicle struck and seriously injured a pedestrian. The vehicle, a BMW, was owned by BMW Financial Services. The pedestrian and her family sued the driver and BMW Financial for damages. Citizens Insurance Company provided a personal automobile policy listing the driver as an insured and BMW Financial as an additional insured lessor. A separate business auto insurance policy was issued by Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Companies to BMW Financial. The case settled, with Citizens and Empire paying their policy limits. Citizens reimbursed Empire for a portion of the costs Empire expended in legal expenses defending BMW Financial in the civil action but refused to provide Empire with any further reimbursement. Empire subsequently filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking a determination that Citizens was liable for reimbursement of all attorneys' fees it incurred. The superior court granted Empire's motion for summary judgment. Citizens appealed, arguing that Empire was entitled only to a pro-rata apportionment of defense costs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that it would be improper to resort to a pro-rata apportionment of liability.