Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Travis Naser died in a one-vehicle accident that occurred at a T intersection at a dead-end road. The east-west road (“268th Street”) was located in Aurora County. Lynn Foster-Naser, Travis’s wife, brought suit against Aurora County for wrongful death, alleging that the County negligently failed to maintain the double-arrow sign on 268th Street. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the County, concluding that Aurora Township had a statutory duty to maintain the double-arrow sign on 268th Street, and Aurora County did not assume a duty to repair or maintain the Township’s signage when it agreed to maintain the Township’s roads. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Foster-Naser failed to present sufficient probative evidence that the County’s contract agreement to provide road maintenance included an agreement to maintain and repair the Township’s roadway signage. View "Foster-Naser v. Aurora County" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a technician employed by Tiger, filed suit against Triton and W&T after he was injured on board a vessel. W&T hired Triton to provide a vessel, staff, and equipment for W&T's offshore pipeline project, and also hired Tiger as a safety contractor. The district court interpreted the parties’ Master Service Contract (MSC) to place the burden of payment for plaintiff's injuries on W&T alone. The court concluded that the district court properly determined that plaintiff was W&T’s invitee; the district court's factual findings compel the conclusion that plaintiff was not Triton’s invitee; and the district court was correct to hold that W&T was liable under the MSC for Triton’s settlement and defense costs related to plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Grogan v. Triton Diving Services, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Leon and Brenda Rogers purchased a home from Jeffrey Wright. The Rogers subsequently discovered several defects in the home and sued Wright, JWright Development, LLC, and JWright Companies, Inc. (collectively, the JWright defendants), alleging breach of contract, negligence, breach of warranty, and negligent and intentional misrepresentation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the JWright defendants. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s order on the negligence claim but otherwise affirmed, holding (1) issues of material fact existed regarding whether the builder of the Rogers’ home breached its legal duty to build the home in a reasonable and workmanlike manner; and (2) the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the JWright defendants on the remainder of the Rogers’ claims. View "Rogers v. Wright" on Justia Law

In 2012, plaintiff Heidi Kroeber was shot outside the Bad Monkey Bar in Kent, Washington by Matthew Atkinson, who was driving an uninsured truck belonging to a friend at the time he opened fire. Plaintiff and her boyfriend had antagonized Atkinson earlier that evening. After pleading guilty to the crime of "Drive-By Shooting," Atkinson claimed that he had not intended to injure anyone and later claimed that he did not know that he was shooting where people were standing. There were factual disputes concerning whether Atkinson's truck was stopped or in motion at the time that he opened fire, and whether he accelerated rapidly away from the scene after the shooting. Plaintiff filed a claim with defendant, GEICO Insurance Company, to recover damages under the UIM coverage provision of her own automobile insurance policy. Under the relevant parts of this policy, GEICO was liable for "damages an insured is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an underinsured motor vehicle due to: 1. bodily injury sustained by that insured and caused by an accident; and 2. the liability of the owner or operator for these damages must arise out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the underinsured motor vehicle." GEICO denied plaintiffs claim, asserting that her injuries did not arise out of the use of Atkinson's truck. Plaintiff sued GEICO, claiming that she was entitled to UIM coverage. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, and that court certified two questions to the Washington Supreme Court: (1) whether an injury to an insured pedestrian "arose out of" the intentional firing of a gun from an uninsured pickup truck; and (2) whether it is material if the shooter intended to harm anyone when firing the gun. The Washington Supreme Court answered the first question by holding that an injury "arises out of' vehicle use so long as some causal connection is present between a condition of, an attachment to, or some aspect of a vehicle and the resulting injury. "The converse is also true-·-an injury does not 'arise out of' vehicle use under circumstances where no such causal connection exists, making the vehicle the mere situs of the accident." The Court answered the second question in the negative. View "Kroeber v. Geico Ins. Co." on Justia Law

A fire severely damaged a restaurant that was owned by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs made a claim to Defendant, the insurer of the restaurant, but Defendant denied the majority of the claim. Plaintiffs filed a breach-of-contract action against Defendant to recover under the insurance policy. A jury returned a verdict for Plaintiffs in the amount of $236,902. Defendant paid this amount plus interest and costs. Three months after judgment was entered, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendant for “bad faith,” alleging that Defendant lacked an objectively reasonable basis for denying the claim. The district court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the bad-faith action was barred by claim preclusion. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the court of appeals and affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendant, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the final judgment in the breach-of-contract suit barred the later tort action for bad faith. View "Villarreal v. United Fire & Cas. Co." on Justia Law

LimoLiner Inc. contracted with Dattco, Inc. to repair a luxury motor coach that LimoLiner owned. LimoLiner later filed this action in Massachusetts state court alleging breach of contract, misrepresentation, negligence, replevin, and violation of 940 C.M.R. 5.05, a Massachusetts regulation. Dattco removed the case to federal district court. The magistrate judge found that Dattco breached the repair contract by failing to do all of the work that LimoLiner had requested. The judge also ruled for Dattco on all of LimoLiner’s other claims, awarding LimoLiner a total of $25,123 in damages. LimoLiner appealed, arguing, among other things, that the magistrate judge erred in ruling that Dattco may not be held liable under 940 C.M.R. 5.05 for certain actions and omissions that occurred on the job. The First Circuit certified a question concerning 940 C.M.R.’s intended scope to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts and thus did not decide the merits of LimoLiner’s regulatory claims. The Court otherwise affirmed, holding that the magistrate judge did not err in concluding that Dattco did not breach the parties’ oral contract to make the repairs in a timely manner and owed damages only for the loss of use of the vehicle for one limited period of time. View "Limoliner, Inc. v. Dattco, Inc." on Justia Law

In January 2010, Kory Clark received a telephone call around 3 a.m. from his brother asking for assistance with his pickup, which was stuck in a snowdrift. According to Clark's deposition, after the brothers were unable to pull the pickup out of the snowdrift, he drove to their grandfather's nearby farm to get a tractor to pull it out. Clark stated that after proceeding a short way down the road, the tractor broke down and he was unable to get over to the shoulder of the road or restart it. He then walked back to the farm to get his pickup and pick up his brother, who took him home and said he would take care of the tractor. Before the tractor was removed from the road, Rita Fred collided with it while driving to work. Fred sued Clark and his grandfather to recover for her injuries. At the time of the accident, Clark's grandfather had a farm liability policy with Farmers Union Mutual Insurance. Farmers Union defended the grandfather in the action brought by Fred, but declined to defend Clark, claiming he was not insured under the policy. Clark sought a declaratory judgment that Farmers Union had a duty to defend or indemnify him. He also sought damages for bad-faith refusal to defend. QBE Americas, Inc., joined as the third-party claims administrator for Farmers Union. Both Farmers Union and QBE moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. Clark appealed, arguing the district court erred in granting summary judgment and holding he was not entitled to coverage under a farm liability policy. He also argued the district court should not have dismissed his claim for breach of duty to defend. Because the Supreme Court concluded the district court correctly held Clark failed to present evidence sufficient to raise genuine issues of material fact in regard to his claims, it affirmed the judgment. View "Clark v. Farmers Union Mutual Ins." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Delbert Soseeah, Maxine Soseeah and John Borrego filed this action against defendants Sentry Insurance, Dairyland Insurance Company, Peak Property and Casualty Insurance Company, and Viking Insurance Company of Wisconsin (collectively Sentry) claiming, in part, that Sentry failed to timely and properly notify them and other Sentry automobile insurance policyholders of the impact of two New Mexico Supreme Court decisions regarding the availability of uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage under their respective policies. The complaint alleged that Delbert Soseeah, after being injured in a motor vehicle accident, made a claim for UM/UIM benefits under two policies of automobile insurance issued by Sentry to Mrs. Soseeah. According to the complaint, Mrs. Soseeah “never executed a valid waiver of UM/UIM coverage under the” two policies and, consequently, Mr. Soseeah “demanded that . . . Sentry reform” the two policies “to provide stacked uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage limits equal to the limits of the liability coverage on each of the vehicles covered by the” policies pursuant to the two New Mexico Supreme Court decisions. Sentry purportedly refused to reform the policies and rejected Mr. Soseeah’s claim for UM/UIM benefits. The complaint alleged that Sentry, by doing so, violated New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act (UPA), violated a portion of New Mexico’s Insurance Code known as the Trade Practices and Frauds Act (TPFA), breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breached the terms of the two policies. The district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Sentry subsequently sought and was granted permission to appeal the district court’s class certification ruling. Because plaintiffs failed to establish that all members of the general certified class suffered the common injury required by Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2), the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court abused its discretion in certifying the general class. Because the district court’s certification ruling did not expressly address the Rule 23 factors as they applied to each of the identified subclasses, the Court did not have enough information to determine whether the district court abused its discretion in certifying two subclasses. Consequently, the Court directed the district court on remand to address these issues. View "Soseeah v. Sentry Insurance" on Justia Law

David Zerfas swerved to avoid a deer carcass in his lane of travel and lost control of his vehicle. Zerfas died after his vehicle was hit by oncoming traffic. Zerfas’s wife, Stacey, sought uninsured motorist benefits with their automobile insurance company, AMCO Insurance Company, alleging that an unidentified driver left the deer carcass in the lane of travel, which caused Zerfas to lose control of his vehicle. AMCO denied Stacey’s claim on the grounds that Stacey would not legally be entitled to recover damages from the unidentified driver. Stacey subsequently brought a breach of contract action against AMCO. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of AMCO, concluding that the unidentified driver did not have a legal duty to Zerfas to remove the carcass or warn of its existence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that no common law or statutory duty existed between the unidentified driver and Zerfas, and therefore, the circuit court did not err in granting AMCO summary judgment. View "Zerfas v. AMCO Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Cincinnati Insurance issued a liability policy to Painters, which allowed the insured to add an “additional insured” by oral agreement, if that agreement preceded the occurrence and “a certificate of insurance ... has been issued.” No permission from Cincinnati is required, if the insureds have a relationship consistent with the policy. Painters was hired to paint Vita’s premises and orally agreed to add Vita as an additional insurer. Painters’ worker fell, before there was any written confirmation of the oral agreement, and remains in a coma. In a suit by the insurer, seeking a declaration that Vita was not covered based on a certificate issued to Vita the day after the accident, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Cincinnati. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Summary judgment was premature. The policy is ambiguous. A certificate could be regarded a prerequisite to coverage of the additional insured, but also could be intended merely to memorialize the oral agreement. The policy could also mean that the oral agreement must be memorialized in writing before the insured can file a claim. Oral agreements are valid contracts and the policy is explicit that an oral agreement is sufficient to add an insured. The certificate is not a contract, but “a matter of information only” that “confers no rights upon the certificate holder.” View "Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Vita Food Prods, Inc." on Justia Law