Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

After Plaintiff filed a complaint for divorce from Dean Miller, Plaintiff and Dean executed a property settlement agreement providing that Dean would maintain life insurance for the benefit of the parties' four minor children until they reached the age of majority. Dean subsequently executed a service request form listing his children as the beneficiaries of his life insurance policy and instructing that beneficial interests be paid to and managed by Kristin Saunders as custodial trustee for the benefit of his minor children. After Dean died, funds from his life insurance policy were distributed to Saunders. Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief asking the superior court to declare that Dean's four children were the sole beneficiaries of his life insurance policy. The court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that Dean created a valid custodial trust pursuant to the Rhode Island Uniform Custodial Trust Act (RIUCTA) and that the trust was not inconsistent with Dean's obligations under the property settlement agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Dean created a custodial trust pursuant to RIUCTA; and (2) Dean did not violate the property settlement agreement by designating Saunders as custodial trustee on the service request form. View "Miller v. Saunders" on Justia Law

A subcontractor on a public project filed suit against the general contractor and an insurance company that provided a payment bond seeking to recover money owed under the subcontract after the general contractor defaulted. The subcontractor asserted a payment-bond claim against the insurance company and breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and other claims against the general contractor. The insurance company filed a motion for summary judgment on the payment-bond claim because the subcontractor mailed its pre-suit notice of claim to the general contractor listed on the subcontract rather than the address listed on the payment bond. The district court denied the motion and granted judgment against the insurance company. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) pursuant to Minn. Stat. 574.31(2)(a), a claimant must serve notice on the contractor at its address as stated in the bond as a prerequisite to filing suit; and (2) the subcontractor in this case did not comply with the statutory notice requirements. View "Safety Signs, LLC v. Niles-Wiese Constr. Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner Albert Boogaard argued that the comprehensive marine liability insurance policy he purchased from International Marine Underwriters (IMU) for his general partnership, ABCD Marine, covered bodily injuries he suffered while working as an independent contractor for Northland Services Inc. (NSI). Specifically, petitioner claimed that even as a general partner he qualified and was covered as a third party under the "insured contract" provision of the policy. IMU contended that as a general partner and insured, Boogaard was not a third party under the insured contract provision. The Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of IMU. As a general partner, Boogaard did not qualify as a third party under the "insured contract" provision in accordance with Washington partnership law. View "Int'l Marine Underwriters v. ABCD Marine, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a breach of contract action against Defendant, her insurer, claiming that Defendant improperly denied her claim for homeowners' insurance coverage after a fire damaged her home. BSI Financial Services, Inc., as the holder of the note and mortgage on Plaintiff's home, sought to intervene in the underlying action. The trial court denied the motion to intervene as untimely based on the policy's one year limitation period. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court erred in denying the motion to intervene without first determining whether the motion related back to the original complaint; and (2) the motion to intervene did not constitute a new, separate action but, rather, related back to Plaintiff's original complaint. Remanded. View "Austin-Cesares v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am." on Justia Law

The NECA-IBEW Health and Welfare Fund provides health benefits to members of a local union of electrical workers. The Fund negotiated a Local Agreement with Sav-Rx, a provider of prescription-drug benefits, under which Sav-Rx reimburses pharmacies for dispensing medication and then invoices the Fund for some of its costs. The Local Agreement does not call for arbitration. A few months later, Sav-Rx negotiated a different agreement with the national organization of the IBEW, with which the local is affiliated. The National Agreement offers locals reduced charges and more services than the Local Agreement and contains a mandatory arbitration clause. Local unions and funds could opt into the National Agreement, but the Fund's trustees never voted on the matter. Over the next eight years the Fund accepted from Sav-Rx services provided by the National Agreement. The Fund sued Sav-Rx for invoicing the Fund at rates not authorized by either the Local or National Agreement. The district court dismissed, finding that Fund had accepted the benefits of the National Agreement and was bound to it; Sav-Rx established that the Fund knew it was accepting benefits under the National Agreement. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "NECA-IBEW Rockford Local Union 364 Health & Welfare Fund v. A&A Drug Co." on Justia Law

Petitioners had a homeowners' insurance policy with Respondent that covered Petitioners' dwelling. The policy stated that any covered loss would be paid based on actual cash value, rather than replacement value, but the policy did not define the term "actual cash value." After Petitioners' dwelling was damaged by a tornado, Respondent valued Petitioners' loss at $48,647 after calculating the repair costs and the depreciation of the items requiring repair. Petitioners brought a class action in federal district court against Respondent, alleging that Respondent breached the insurance policy, and those policies of the putative class members, when it improperly applied a depreciation factor to the labor portion of repairs required at their respective dwellings. Specifically, Petitioners contend that their policy's failure to address depreciation of labor rendered the policy's term "actual cash value" ambiguous. The federal district court certified a question of law to the Supreme Court, which answered by holding that an insurer, in determining the "actual cash value" of a covered loss under an indemnity insurance policy, may not depreciate the costs of labor when the term "actual cash value" is not defined in the policy. View "Adams v. Cameron Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Farmers and American, insurance companies, for breach of contract and various state law violations, seeking recovery for additional loss. The court concluded that plaintiffs' claims for specific performance, unjust enrichment, and bad faith were expressly preempted by federal law; the court affirmed the district court's grant of Farmers' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' extracontractual claims because they were preempted under federal law; and the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Farmers on the ground that plaintiffs failed to file a supplemental proof of loss, a strictly construed requirement, and thus did not satisfy the prerequisites for suing on their additional claims, rejecting plaintiffs' estoppel, duress, repudiation, and due process arguments. Further, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for American, concluding that the American policy was supplemental and plaintiffs could not recover from American for flood damage because they had not exhausted their primary policy with Farmers. View "Gunter, et al. v. Farmers Ins. Co., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Darwin alleging that the insurance company breached its duty to defend and its implied duties of good faith and fair dealing under the policy at issue. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Darwin. The court concluded that Darwin owed no duty to defend plaintiffs because all of the claims at issue fell within the Customer Funds Exclusion; the district court's interpretation of the Customer Funds Exclusion did not violate the illusory coverage doctrine; and the reasonable expectations doctrine did not apply in this case. The court also concluded that the innocent insured doctrine did not obligate Darwin to defend plaintiffs and the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on plaintiffs' claim for breach of the implied contractual duties of good faith and fair dealing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Bethel, II, et al. v. Darwin Select Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Appellant was involved in a car accident with Kent Blough. Appellant's insurer, USAA Casualty Insurance Company, concluded that Appellant was the majority at fault for the accident and refused to honor Appellant's $300,000 UM/UIM coverage. Appellant filed suit against Blough, and in an apparent attempt to prevent Appellant from prevailing, USAA unsuccessfully tried to intervene in the lawsuit. Blough's insurer paid Appellant the limit of Blough's insurance policy. USAA's expert eventually determined that Blough, whom USAA had already paid under Appellant's policy, had been the majority at fault. USAA then tendered to Appellant its $300,000 UM/UIM policy limit. Appellant filed a complaint against USAA for, among other claims, violations of the Montana Unfair Trade Practices Act and emotional distress as a result of the mishandling of her claim. The district court entered summary judgment for USAA. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court (1) erred in determining that Appellant may not pursue a claim based upon USAA's alleged failure to reasonably investigate her claim as required under Mont. Code Ann. 33-13-201(4); and (2) erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of USAA regarding Appellant's claim for damages arising from emotional distress. View " McVey v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Petitioner was a guest passenger in a vehicle insured by Progressive Classic Insurance Company when the vehicle was rear-ended by a truck. Petitioner received medical payments coverage under the Progressive policy for some of the medical expenses she incurred for the treatment of her injuries. Petitioner later successfully sued the truck owner and driver and received damages. Progressive subsequently asserted a subrogation lien on the recovery for the amount it paid under the medical payments coverage. Petitioner filed this complaint against Progressive, alleging common law and statutory bad faith claims. The circuit court dismissed the action, determining that because Petitioner was not a named insured under the Progressive policy and paid no premiums for the policy, Petitioner was a third-party insured and was, therefore, precluded from pursuing her bad faith claims against Progressive. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Petitioner was a first-party insured under the Progressive policy because the policy included within the definition of an insured person "any other person while occupying a covered vehicle"; and (2) therefore, Petitioner may pursue an action against Progressive for common law and statutory bad faith. View "Dorsey v. Progressive Classic Ins. Co." on Justia Law