Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

At issue in this extraordinary writ proceeding was whether Nev. Rev. Stat. 11.259(1) compels dismissal where the initial pleading in an action alleging nonresidential construction malpractice was served without filing the attorney affidavit and expert report required by Nev. Rev. Stat. 11.258(1) and (3). The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that a defective pleading served in violation of section 11.258 is void ab initio and of no legal effect and, thus, cannot be cured by amendment. The Court held that because the initial pleadings served by certain real parties in interest in this case did not include the attorney affidavit and expert report as required by section 11.258, those pleadings were void ab initio, and the district court did not have discretionary authority to allow the parties to amend their pleadings to cure their failure to comply with section 11.258.

This case arose because the settlement of a personal-injury suit brought by a recipient of workers' compensation benefits against a third-party tortfeasor did not make any provision to repay the statutory subrogee, the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation. The Bureau brought suit against both the recipient of the workers' compensation benefits and third-party tortfeasor under Ohio Rev. Code 4123.931(G) to recover the full amount of its subrogation interest. The trial court held that a two-year limitations period applied and that it had expired. The court of appeals reversed, holding that a six-year limitations period applied and that it had not yet run out. At issue on appeal was whether a claim under section 4123.931(G) brought by a statutory subrogee to recover its subrogation interest is subject to a two-year statute of limitations, the same period applicable to the injured worker's personal-injury suit against the third party, or to a six-year statute of limitations for an action on a liability created by statute. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, holding that the claim in this case was an action upon a liability created by statute and that the statute of limitations was six years.

Do Nguyen, Jana Nguyen, Kenny Nguyen and John Doeâs (collectively "the Nguyens") appealed a district court's grant of a motion to set aside a default judgment in favor of Janice Maynard. On appeal, Maynard contended that the district court abused its discretion in setting aside its previously entered default judgment. In 2006, Maynard filled out an application to rent a trailer home from the Nguyens and reached an agreement with the Nguyens under which Maynard would receive title to the home if she paid $500 in rent each month for a period of three years. In 2008, Maynard reported to the Ada County Jail to serve a sentence, and when she returned home on November 27, 2008, she discovered that the Nguyens had removed her belongings from the trailer home and rented the trailer to other tenants. In 2009, an evidentiary hearing was held on the issue of damages. At the beginning of that hearing Maynardâs attorney told the court that he had received a two-page letter on June 29, 2009, which was addressed to "[counsel for Maynard], Janice Maynard and To Whom it May Concern." Counsel asked whether the court had received that letter, and described various documents which were attached to it. When the court said that it had not received the letter, the attorney offered no further information concerning the letterâs contents, but proceeded to present evidence concerning damages. The district court entered a default judgment against the Nguyens in the amount of $3,265 in actual damages and an enhanced penalty of $15,000 for the ICPA violation. The Nguyens filed a motion to set aside the default judgment. The Nguyens noted that they had sent Maynardâs attorney a letter explaining their version of events and why they believed that Maynard had abandoned the trailer home. On December 7, 2009, the district court granted the Nguyensâ motion to set aside the default judgment, finding that the Nguyens had demonstrated that there were unique and compelling circumstances justifying relief. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed the district courtâs order setting aside the default judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Appellants, PNH Inc. and Ronald Creatore, filed an action against Alfa Laval Flow, Inc., which manufactures equipment for sanitary processing of food and beverages, for abuse of process and tortious interference with a contract. Appellants asserted that Alfa Laval Flow misused an involuntary-bankruptcy case it filed against its distributor in an effort to eliminate Creatore as a competitor in the sale of equipment for sanitary processing of food and beverages. The trial court dismissed the claims. The Seventh District affirmed, holding that federal law preempts state-law causes of action alleging the abuse of bankruptcy proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the United States Bankruptcy Code preempts state-law claims that allow the recovery of damages for misconduct committed by a litigant during bankruptcy proceedings.

In this appeal, accounting firm Bryan Brothers sought coverage under a professional liability insurance policy issued by Continental Casualty Company for liability arising from illegal acts of a former Bryan Brother's employee. Under the policy, it was a condition precedent to coverage that no insured had knowledge, prior to the inception of the policy, of an act that was reasonably likely to become the basis for a claim. The court held that because Bryan Brothers had such knowledge, the claims at issue were not covered. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Continental Casualty Company.

K & L Homes appealed a district court judgment based upon a jury verdict in favor of Neal Leno and Susan Leno ("the Lenos"). On appeal, K & L Homes argued: (1) the district court erred by deciding K & L Homes had not sufficiently raised the defense of fault by the Lenos in its answer; (2) the court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on comparative fault, the court erred by denying K & L Homes' request for inspection and not allowing a defendant to testify on his observations during a jury viewing; and (3) the court erred by ruling K & L Homes had not disclaimed any implied warranties as a matter of law. The Lenos purchased a newly-constructed house from K & L Homes. The Lenos alleged they noticed cracks, unevenness, and shifting due to improper construction not long after purchasing the house from K & L Homes. Initially, the Lenos claimed K & L Homes was negligent, breached the parties' contract, and breached implied warranties. The Lenos claimed the parties' contract implied warranties that the house would be built according to the applicable codes, that it would fit its purpose as a residence, and that it would be constructed according to engineering standards and in a workmanlike condition. K & L Homes requested the jury be instructed on comparative fault, but the district court denied the proposed comparative fault instruction. The district court decided K & L Homes had not adequately pled fault, and comparative fault did not apply to Lenos' cause of action. The district court also found, as a matter of law, that K & L Homes had not disclaimed any implied warranties in a Homeowners' Guide given to the Lenos at the closing on the house. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with the findings made by the district court and affirmed its decisions as to all issues raised on appeal.

Plaintiff and his wife (the Kaplans) filed suit against Mayo Clinic Rochester, Inc., other Mayo entities (collectively, Mayo), and Mayo doctors David Nagorney and Lawrence Burgart, making a number of claims arising out of plaintiff's erroneous diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and plaintiff's surgery based on that diagnosis. The Kaplans subsequently appealed the judgments in favor of Mayo and Dr. Burgart on their negligent-failure-to-diagnose and contract claims. The court held that the error, if any, in admitting a certain medical file, which included insurance documents, into evidence did not affect the Kaplans' substantial rights and the Kaplans were not prejudiced by the district court's decision not to give a limiting instruction. The court agreed with the district court that the Kaplans' assertion that the biopsy slides might have been tampered with was based on rank speculation where they failed to present evidence that the slides had been changed in any way. The court also held that the Kaplans have shown no basis for granting them a new trial on their claim for negligent failure to diagnose. The court held, however, that the district court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law where the Kaplans have offered sufficient evidence in their case-in-chief to support a breach-of-contract claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiffs brought an action against defendant, seeking a refund of two cruise tickets they purchased and cancelled, and damages under G.L.c. 93A for unfair and deceptive trade practices. The court concluded that the evidence at trial plainly established that defendant violated the Attorney General's travel service regulations in two respects: fist, it failed to disclose the refund policy; and second, having violated the disclosure statement, it failed to refund the payments made by a cancelling customer within thirty days. These violations qualified as unfair or deceptive acts, and they caused plaintiffs a loss: the lack of a prompt refund of the ticket price. The court also concluded that plaintiffs' demand letter satisfied the requirements of G.L.c. 93A, section 9(3). The purposes of the demand letter were sufficiently fulfilled where it constituted fair notice of the claim and enabled defendant to make a reasonable tender of settlement. Accordingly, the judgment for defendant on plaintiffs' claims was reversed and the case remanded for the entry of judgment for plaintiffs and for determination of their damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs.

Gregory Latterell, on behalf of his stepson Jared Boom's estate, sued Progressive Northern Insurance and AIG Insurance to recover underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits following Boom's death from a motor vehicle accident. Progressive, the insurer of Boom's vehicle, denied Latterell's claim for UIM benefits because of a business-use exclusion in Boom's insurance policy. AIG, Lattrell's insurer, also denied Latterell's claim. Latterell sued, and the district court granted summary judgment to Progressive and AIG. The court of appeals affirmed, holding (1) the business-use exclusion in the Progressive policy was enforceable under the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act and unambiguously excluded UIM coverage under the specific circumstances of this case, and (2) Latterell could not recover UIM benefits under the AIG policy. The Supreme Court reversed the denial of Latterell's summary judgment as to Progressive, holding that Progressive's business-use exclusion was unenforceable under the No-Fault Act. Remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Latterell against Progressive.

After Homeowners' house burned down, Homeowners' insurer denied coverage, stating that payment was not timely delivered, the money order was not signed, and the damaged house was the secondary house and Insurer's underwriting policies required insurance on the primary house also to be purchased through Insurer in order to have coverage in place for the secondary residence. Homeowners filed suit, asserting that no reasonable basis in fact or law existed for denial of the claim and seeking damages and a declaratory judgment that the loss was covered. The district court granted Insurer's motion for summary judgment and denied Homeowners' motion for partial summary judgment with respect to their declaratory judgment action. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Insurer as genuine issues of material fact remained, and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Homeowners' motion for partial summary judgment.