Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

DWS Properties (DWS) owned rental property. The sole member of DWS was Dustin Shore. After a pipe burst at the property causing substantial damage, Shore executed contracts with Performance Adjusting Public Insurance Adjusters (Performance) and Multi-State Restoration (Multi-State), in which Performance agreed to provide public adjusting service relative to the loss, and Multi-State agreed to perform emergency clean-up work at the property. Performance and Multi-State (Plaintiffs) were never paid for the services they provided, and after Shore filed for personal bankruptcy, Shore's debts to Plaintiffs were discharged. Plaintiffs subsequently filed suit against DWS, seeking damages for book account, breach of contract, quasi-contract, and unjust enrichment. DWS filed a motion to dismiss, which the hearing justice converted into a motion for summary judgment and granted, reasoning that Shore had signed the contracts in an individual capacity without making any reference to DWS. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court and remanded, holding (1) summary judgment was inappropriate on Plaintiffs' contract claims; and (2) the fact that DWS was not explicitly named on the contracts did not entitle it to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs' equitable claims. View "Multi-State Restoration, Inc. v. DWS Props., LLC" on Justia Law

Jared Crook was driving a Cadillac leased for him by his father, Calvin Crook, when he collided with Jessica Ahlquist's vehicle. Ahlquist sustained severe personal injuries as a result of the accident. The Cadillac was insured by Calvin through a policy issued by Allstate Insurance Company. Allstate paid the policy limits, and Ahlquist sought to recover additional compensation through another Allstate policy issued to Cheryl, Calvin's former wife. The policy was issued for Cheryl's vehicle. Allstate filed a declaratory judgment action arguing that Cheryl's insurance policy did not apply to the accident. The trial justice granted summary judgment in Allstate's favor. Ahlquist appealed, contending that the trial justice erred in granting summary judgment because Calvin, who was a named driver under Cheryl's insurance policy, provided the Cadillac to Jared. Ahlquist also argued that there was an ambiguity as to whether the policy covered the accident. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in its judgment. View "Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ahlquist" on Justia Law

The Hancock Center in Chicago is managed by Shorenstein (several related companies). Shorenstein hired an architectural firm, MCA, to design and oversee renovation of windows and exterior walls; MCA hired a general contractor. In 2002, a scaffold fell from the 42nd floor in a high wind and killed three people in cars, severely injuring several others. Shorenstein settled with plaintiffs in 2006 for a total of $8.7 million. MCA’s contract with Shorenstein had required MCA to obtain liability insurance covering the owner, Shorenstein, and any other party specified by the owner. MCA obtained the required insurance policy from AMICO, covering “any person or organization to whom [MCA is] obligated by virtue of a written contract.” There was a dispute concerning which Shorenstein entities were covered. Shorenstein was awarded $959,866.02 by the district court. The Seventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the court erred in apportioning the award among the Shorenstein entities. The court rejected AMICO’s arguments that the claim was barred by an exclusion of coverage for injuries “due to rendering or failure to render any professional service” by an insured and that Shorenstein gave up its right to indemnity by AMICO by asking its other insurer for indemnification. View "Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Basic Research, LLC marketed the weight-loss product Akavar. Customers who purchased Akavar filed lawsuits against Basic Research claiming false advertising, defective product, and failure to perform as promised. Basic Research was insured by Admiral Insurance under a policy that provided coverage for "personal and advertising injury." After the underlying claims were filed, Basic Research invoked its coverage and asked Admiral to defend it. Admiral refused to defend, alleging that the underlying claims were not covered by the terms of the policy. Thereafter, Basic Research brought this suit for declaratory relief. The district court granted Admiral's motion for summary judgment, finding that the underlying claims were specifically excluded from coverage. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the asserted claims were not covered by the policy and were in fact squarely excluded by its terms; and (2) therefore, Admiral had no duty to defend Basic Research. View "Basic Research, LLC v. Admiral Ins. Co." on Justia Law

An Arizona couple was injured on their motorcycle by another biker. The accident occurred in South Dakota. Because the other motorcyclist left the scene, the couple sought uninsured motorist benefits from their insurer. The couple's policy was issued in Arizona for a motorcycle registered and principally garaged in Arizona. The insurer tendered the policy's full uninsured motorist benefits of $15,000 per person. However, the couple would have recovered $25,000 per person in South Dakota had they been able to obtain the other biker's liability insurance. The circuit court declared that the terms of the Arizona insurance policy, rather than South Dakota law, governed the applicable coverage. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that altering the terms of the parties' contracts in these circumstances was not supported by law. View "Milinkovich v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Gerald Kirchner accidentally shot and killed Robbie Bragg while both men were working for Grimmett Enterprises (Grimmett). Kirchner's mother, Barbara Surbaugh, filed a complaint against Bragg and Grimmett. The parties settled, after which Defendants assigned all claims they might have against their respective insurers for refusing to provide a defense and coverage. Thereafter, Surbaugh filed a declaratory judgment action against Grimmett's insurer, American States. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. At issue was whether an employee exclusion in the policy was ambiguous and whether the exclusion had been brought to the attention of Grimmett. The circuit court denied the motions. After a jury trial, the circuit court concluded that the employee policy exclusion was unenforceable because the exclusionary language had not been brought to the attention of Grimmett. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that summary judgment should have been granted in favor of American States, as American States established at the summary judgment stage that no material issue of fact was in dispute as to the exclusion being unambiguous and disclosed to Grimmett. Therefore, the exclusion was enforceable. View "Am. States Ins. Co. v. Surbaugh" on Justia Law

Petitioners sought underinsured motorist coverage (UIM) under a policy issued by Auto-Owners Insurance Company (Owners) as a result of an automobile accident caused by an allegedly negligent driver of a rental vehicle owned by Avis Rent-a-Car (Avis). Avis, as a car rental company, was statutorily required to pay $50,000 as a result of the accident. Owners denied Petitioners' UIM claim, asserting that because Avis was a self-insurer, the rental vehicle was not an underinsured automobile under the terms of the policy. The circuit court ruled in favor of Owners, determining that Avis was unambiguously a self-insurer, and therefore, the Avis vehicle did not fall within the policy definition of underinsured automobile. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) as applied, the policy term "self-insurer" is ambiguous, and therefore, the policy is interpreted in favor of Petitioners to afford coverage; and (2) even if the term "self-insurer" appears to be unambiguous, interpreting it to exclude self-insured rental vehicles from coverage leads to an absurd result here. Remanded. View "Bethke v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, farmers, purchased a Farm-Guard insurance policy from First Maxfield Mutual Insurance Association. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Company (Grinnell Mutual) reinsured the policy. Two years later, 535 of the hogs Plaintiffs were raising suffocated to death in Plaintiffs' building. Plaintiffs filed a claim with Grinnell Mutual to recover under the policy, but Grinnell Mutual denied the claim. Plaintiffs sued Grinnell Mutual for breach of contract. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The district court denied Grinnell Mutual's motion and granted Plaintiffs' motion based on the reasonable expectation doctrine. The court of appeals affirmed on alternative grounds, concluding the insurance policy was ambiguous and construing the ambiguity in favor of Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the policy was not ambiguous, and as a matter of law, the policy did not provide coverage; and (2) as a matter of law, the doctrine of reasonable expectations did not apply here. Remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Grinnell Mutual. View "Boelman v. Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co." on Justia Law

Appellant was the beneficiary of three life insurance policies insuring her husband. After the death of Appellant's husband, Appellant and one of the insurers (Insurer) disputed how the policy proceeds would be paid to Appellant. Appellant, a Nevada domiciliary, filed a complaint against Insurer on behalf of herself and a nationwide class of similarly situated persons in federal court in New Jersey, asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. Sitting in diversity, the U.S. district court granted Insurer's motion to dismiss without prejudice. Appellant subsequently filed this action against Insurer in a Nevada state court, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duties arising from a confidential relationship, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The district court dismissed all of Appellant's claims on issue preclusion grounds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) here, New Jersey preclusion law applies under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Semtek International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.; and (2) under New Jersey law, Appellant would be precluded from relitigating her claims in Nevada. View "Garcia v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am." on Justia Law

Levy Gardens appealed the district court's decision ordering Commonwealth to pay Levy Gardens pursuant to Levy Gardens' title insurance policy with Commonwealth. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that Levy Gardens had coverage under the insurance policy and that Levy Gardens did not violate the conditions of the policy in a manner prejudicial to Commonwealth. The district court did not err in concluding that the insurance policy provided coverage for only the diminution in value of title to the property resulting from the zoning encumbrance. The district court's findings that Commonwealth's actions were not arbitrary and capricious and Commonwealth made its assertions in good faith were reasonable and supported by the record. Therefore, the court held that the district court did not manifestly err by declining to impose penalties to Commonwealth. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Levy Gardens Partners 2007, LP v. Lewis Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law