Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Mullins Food Products, Inc. was sued in Illinois state court for violating the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Mullins requested its liability insurer, Citizens Insurance Company of America, to defend the suit, but Citizens declined and instead filed a federal suit seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Mullins based on exclusions in the commercial liability insurance policies issued to Mullins in 2015, 2016, and 2017. While the federal suit was pending, Mullins settled the state-court action.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois agreed with Citizens that the policy exclusions relieved Citizens of the duty to defend or indemnify Mullins. Specifically, the court found that the Access or Disclosure of Confidential or Personal Information exclusion and the Recording and Distribution of Material or Information in Violation of Law exclusion barred coverage for BIPA claims. The district court also ruled against Mullins on its counterclaim for breach of contract, reasoning that Citizens' timely filing of the declaratory judgment action precluded a finding of breach.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the district court's decision. The appellate court concluded that the Access or Disclosure exclusion in the 2016 and 2017 policies barred coverage for BIPA claims, but the Statutory Violations exclusion did not. Therefore, Citizens had a duty to defend and indemnify Mullins under the 2015 policy, assuming Mullins provided timely notice of the state-court action. The appellate court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the timeliness of Mullins' notice and to address Mullins' claim for reimbursement of defense costs. View "Citizens Insurance Company of America v Mullins Food Products, Inc." on Justia Law

PorterCare Adventist Health Systems had inadequate surgical-sterilization procedures for about two years, leading to over $40 million in liability from thousands of patients' claims. PorterCare sought coverage from AdHealth, its excess-liability insurer, for the full $40 million policy limit, arguing that the claims arose from one medical incident. AdHealth refused coverage, asserting that a medical incident covers injuries to a single person, not multiple people, and filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment. PorterCare counterclaimed for declaratory judgment and breach of contract.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted summary judgment to AdHealth, agreeing with its interpretation that a medical incident is limited to the acts or omissions causing injury to one person. The court found that AdHealth owed coverage only for the claims of a single patient that trigger the excess policy’s liability threshold, not for multiple patients' claims grouped together.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the policy’s definition of “medical incident” unambiguously applies to the injuries of a single person. Therefore, AdHealth is liable only for individual claims exceeding PorterCare’s $2 million self-insurance retention, not for the aggregated claims of multiple patients. View "Adhealth, Limited v. PorterCare Adventist Health Systems" on Justia Law

Kepali Group procured insurance for its fleet of vehicles through an agent at Brown & Brown of Florida, with Prime Property & Casualty Insurance Company issuing a commercial automobile policy for the period from January 23, 2019, to January 23, 2020. The policy included a provision for after-acquired vehicles, requiring notification within 30 days of acquisition for coverage. On December 6, 2019, a 2009 Toyota Sienna owned by Kepali was involved in an accident. Kepali had acquired the vehicle on September 30, 2019, and notified Brown to add it to the Prime policy. Prime issued a quote for the additional premium, but Kepali did not pay it, and Prime did not issue an endorsement for the vehicle.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled that Brown was acting as Kepali’s agent, not Prime’s, when attempting to procure insurance for the 3985 Toyota. However, the court concluded that the vehicle was covered under the policy’s after-acquired auto provision because Kepali met the two conditions: Prime covered all of Kepali’s vehicles, and Kepali notified Prime within 30 days of acquiring the vehicle. The court ruled that Prime had a duty to defend Kepali and Mr. Rodriguez but deferred ruling on the duty to indemnify until the underlying suit was resolved. The court granted summary judgment against Kepali and Mr. Rodriguez on their reformation and promissory estoppel claims and dismissed the remaining claims as moot.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. The court held that the after-acquired auto provision did not require payment of an additional premium within 30 days for coverage to continue. The court also found that the premium audit provision allowed Prime to compute the final premium and bill Kepali, and that Prime failed to perform this audit or send a bill. Therefore, Prime could not terminate coverage for non-payment without following the policy’s cancellation procedures. The court concluded that Prime had a duty to defend Kepali and Mr. Rodriguez in the underlying state court action. View "Prime Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Kepali Group, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2005, Island Pointe, LLC contracted Complete Building Corporation (CBC) to construct a condominium project, Palmetto Pointe at Peas Island. CBC subcontracted Tri-County Roofing (TCR) for roofing and related work. In 2014-2015, Palmetto discovered construction defects and sued CBC, TCR, and others for negligence and breach of warranty. Palmetto received $6,800,000 in settlements, including $1,000,000 from CBC's insurer for a covenant-not-to-execute and $1,975,000 from four other defendants.The trial began in May 2019, and the jury found CBC and TCR liable for $6,500,000 in actual damages and $500,000 each in punitive damages. The trial court apportioned 5% liability to two other defendants, making CBC and TCR jointly and severally liable for the remaining 90% of actual damages. TCR sought setoff for the $1,000,000 payment and the settlements from the four other defendants. The trial court denied TCR's motion for setoff, except for partial amounts conceded by Palmetto.The South Carolina Supreme Court reviewed the case. It reversed the court of appeals' decision, holding that TCR is entitled to set off the full $1,000,000 paid by CBC's insurer. The court affirmed the lower court's decision regarding the settlements from Novus, Atlantic, H and A, and Cohen's, agreeing that the trial court reasonably allocated the settlement amounts. The case was remanded to the trial court for the calculation of the judgment against TCR. View "Palmetto Pointe v. Tri-County Roofing" on Justia Law

HIVE Construction, Inc. served as the general contractor for the construction of Masterpiece Kitchen, a restaurant. The contract required HIVE to follow specific architectural plans, including installing two layers of drywall on a wall separating the kitchen and dining area. Instead, HIVE installed one layer of drywall and one layer of combustible plywood without approval. A fire started within the wall, causing significant damage and forcing the restaurant to close. Mid-Century Insurance Company, as the property insurer and subrogee of Masterpiece Kitchen, paid for the damages and then sued HIVE for negligence, alleging willful and wanton conduct.The district court initially allowed Mid-Century to amend its complaint to include a breach of contract claim but later reversed this decision, requiring Mid-Century to proceed with the negligence claim. At trial, the jury found HIVE's conduct to be willful and wanton, awarding damages to Mid-Century. HIVE appealed, arguing that the economic loss rule barred the negligence claim. The Colorado Court of Appeals agreed, reversing the district court's decision and instructing a verdict in HIVE's favor.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and concluded that the economic loss rule does not provide an exception for willful and wanton conduct. The court held that the rule barred Mid-Century's negligence claim because the duty HIVE allegedly breached was not independent of its contractual obligations. Consequently, the court affirmed the judgment of the Colorado Court of Appeals, upholding the application of the economic loss rule to bar the negligence claim. View "Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. HIVE Construction" on Justia Law

Maria Wilson purchased an insurance policy from Union National Fire Insurance Company (UNFIC) through agent Robin Wilson. The policy covered personal property at 2170A Tillman Chapel Road, which included a house and a travel trailer. Maria, who is illiterate, relied on Robin's verbal description of the policy. After a fire destroyed the house and her personal property, Maria filed a claim, which was denied by UNFIC, citing that she did not live in the house, a purported requirement for coverage.Maria sued UNFIC, Kemper Corporate Services, Robin Wilson, and others in the Circuit Court of Claiborne County, Mississippi, alleging breach of contract, negligence, fraud, and other claims. The defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction and claiming that the non-diverse defendants were improperly joined. The district court agreed, denied Maria's motion to remand, and compelled arbitration based on the policy's arbitration clause. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the defendants, and the district court confirmed the arbitration award.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court erred in denying Maria's motion to remand because non-diverse defendant Robin Wilson was properly joined. The court found that the insurance policy did not clearly require Maria to live in the house for her personal property to be covered, thus her negligence claim against Robin Wilson was viable. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the motion to remand, vacated the order compelling arbitration and the confirmation of the arbitration award, and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to remand it to state court. View "Wilson v. Kemper Corporate Services" on Justia Law

US Framing International LLC entered into a subcontract with Continental Building Company for framing services on two student-housing projects. Disputes arose, leading US Framing to leave the Knoxville project. Continental then filed an insurance claim alleging US Framing's breach of the subcontract. US Framing sued Continental and its officers, claiming insurance fraud under Tennessee law. The district court dismissed the case, stating US Framing failed to plead any injury directly caused by the alleged fraudulent insurance claim.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee initially reviewed the case. The court granted Continental's motion to dismiss, concluding that US Framing did not demonstrate any direct injury resulting from Continental's insurance claim. US Framing then appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that US Framing did not plausibly allege any economic damages directly resulting from Continental's alleged insurance fraud. The court also determined that US Framing could not recover attorney's fees or statutory penalties, as it did not establish itself as a prevailing party entitled to such relief. The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Tennessee law, which requires a direct causal link between the alleged fraud and the claimed damages. View "US Framing International LLC v. Continental Building Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, E&I Global Energy Services, Inc. and E&C Global, LLC, sued Liberty Mutual Insurance Company for breach of contract and tort claims related to a construction project. The United States, through the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), contracted with Isolux to build a substation, and Liberty issued performance and payment bonds for Isolux. After Isolux was terminated, Liberty hired E&C as the completion contractor, but E&I performed the work. Plaintiffs claimed Liberty failed to pay for the work completed.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota granted summary judgment for Liberty on the unjust enrichment claim and ruled in Liberty's favor on all other claims after a bench trial. The court denied Plaintiffs' untimely request for a jury trial, excluded an expert witness report filed after the deadline, found no evidence of an assignment of rights between E&C and E&I, and ruled against Plaintiffs on their fraud, deceit, and negligent misrepresentation claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the jury trial request, as Plaintiffs failed to timely file the motion and did not justify the delay. The exclusion of the expert report was also upheld, as the district court properly applied the relevant factors and found the late report was neither substantially justified nor harmless. The court affirmed the district court's finding that there was no valid assignment of rights from E&C to E&I, meaning Liberty's promise to pay was to E&C, not E&I. The court also upheld the findings that Liberty did not have the intent to deceive or induce reliance, and that Bruce did not reasonably rely on Mattingly's statements. Finally, the court declined to address the unjust enrichment claim as Plaintiffs did not raise the argument below. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings in their entirety. View "E&I Global Energy Services v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Ellen Williams purchased a residential property in Houma, Louisiana, which was mortgaged by Flagstar Bank. Since Williams did not insure the home, Flagstar obtained a lender-placed hazard insurance policy from Integon National Insurance Company at Williams's expense. The policy named Flagstar as the "Insured" and Williams as the "Borrower." Williams paid all premiums and complied with all policy requirements. The policy included a provision stating that if the loss amount exceeded Flagstar's insurable interest, Integon would pay Williams any residual amount due for the loss, not exceeding the policy limit.In August 2021, Williams's home was damaged by Hurricane Ida. Although Integon inspected the property and exchanged repair estimates with Williams, it ultimately refused to pay for the full property repairs. Williams sued Integon in the 32nd Judicial District Court for the Parish of Terrebonne, asserting breach-of-contract and bad-faith claims under Louisiana law. Integon removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, arguing that Williams lacked standing to sue under the policy. The district court agreed with Integon, ruling that Williams was not a named insured, additional insured, or third-party beneficiary, and dismissed the case without allowing Williams to amend her complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the policy's loss payment provision clearly manifested an intent to benefit Williams, provided a certain benefit when the loss amount exceeded Flagstar's insurable interest, and that this benefit was not merely incidental. The court held that Williams might be able to plead plausible facts supporting her status as a third-party beneficiary. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to allow Williams to amend her complaint. View "Williams v. Integon National Insurance" on Justia Law

JohnsonKreis Construction Company, Inc. ("JohnsonKreis") served as the general contractor on a hotel-construction project in Birmingham, with Howard Painting, Inc. ("Howard") as a subcontractor. The subcontract agreement included an indemnity provision requiring Howard to indemnify JohnsonKreis for personal injury or death arising from Howard's negligence. Domingo Rosales-Herrera, an employee of a subcontractor working for Howard, died after falling from a window while attempting to load equipment into a trash box on a telehandler owned by JohnsonKreis. The personal representative of Rosales-Herrera's estate filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against both JohnsonKreis and Howard.The Jefferson Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Howard and its insurers, Auto-Owners Insurance Company and Owners Insurance Company (collectively "Owners"), determining that the indemnity provision in the subcontract agreement was legally unenforceable. The court held that Alabama law does not allow for the apportionment of damages in a wrongful-death case, thus precluding proportional indemnification.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and reversed the trial court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the subcontract agreement's proportional indemnity provision was legally enforceable under Alabama law. The court noted that parties may enter into agreements allowing for indemnification even for claims resulting solely from the negligence of the indemnitee. The court emphasized that such agreements are valid and enforceable if expressed in clear and unequivocal language.The Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, instructing the trial court to consider the parties' evidentiary submissions and arguments regarding the interpretation and application of the disputed provisions of the subcontract agreement and the additional-insured endorsement. View "JohnsonKreis Construction Company, Inc. v. Howard Painting, Inc." on Justia Law