Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff Darlene Gray appealed an order of the Superior Court that dismissed her complaint against Defendant Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company. In 2003, Plaintiff and her sister, in their capacity as trustees of the Ocean Estates Realty Trust, received a quitclaim deed from the Triple P Ranch Realty Trust. Ocean Estates paid $80,000 for the parcel and recorded the deed. Later that year, Ocean Estates conveyed a warranty deed for the land to Plaintiff. At the time she received the deed, Plaintiff obtained a construction loan, granted a mortgage, and purchased title insurance from Commonwealth. The title insurance provided $328,000 in coverage against a title defect. In 2006, Plaintiff learned that Triple P Ranch Realty Trust never acquired title to the property and that the State legally owned it. The land was appraised at $15,000, and the insurer paid the mortgage lender the amount of the appraisal. Plaintiff sued Commonwealth for breach of contract, arguing that Commonwealth's policy should reimburse her for all expenses she incurred prior to learning of the title defect. When the Superior Court denied Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, she appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court found that trial court properly determined the measure of damages for Plaintiff's claim. Without finding errors in the trial court's findings of fact, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision dismissing Plaintiff's complaint.

Plaintiff purchased a credit disability insurance policy from defendant in connection with credit union financing of an automobile. Following an injury on the job, he received benefits in the form of credit union payments on the auto loan for about three years. The defendant then notified plaintiff that it would not continue to pay because he no longer met the definition of Total Disability under the policy. The district court certified a class action, found the definition of the term âTotal Disabilityâ ambiguous and construed it in favor the insured, entered an injunction that set up a claims review process for class members, then decertified the class. The Third Circuit affirmed with respect to the definition. The court vacated and remanded the rest of the judgment, holding that the court abused its discretion in issuing an injunction in which it retained jurisdiction over the class members' claims throughout the claims procedure process after the class was decertified.

Plaintiff Mark Strawn filed a class action suit against Defendants Farmers Insurance Company of Oregon, Mid-Century Insurance Company, and Truck Insurance Exchange (collectively, Farmers). Plaintiff alleged that Farmers had breached contractual duties and committed fraud by instituting a claims handling process that arbitrarily reduced payments for reasonable medical benefits owed under its automobile insurance policies. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff, and awarded damages totaling approximately $8.9 million. Farmers appealed, and the appellate court concluded that the punitive damages awarded by the trial court exceeded constitutional limits, but otherwise affirmed the judgment. Both parties sought the Supreme Courtâs review. Farmers challenged the damages award, arguing that it should be lower. Plaintiff argued that the original award should be reinstated. The Supreme Court rejected Farmersâ arguments, and concluded that the appellate court should not have reached Farmersâ constitutional challenge to the amount of the punitive damages award. Consequently, the Court affirmed part, and reversed part of the appellate decision, and affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant Walnut Street Associates (WSA) provides insurance brokerage services and helps employers obtain health insurance for their employees. Appellee Brokerage Concepts, Inc. (BCI) is a third party administrator of employee benefit plans. Procacci retained BCI as administrator of its insurance plans, and BCI paid commissions to WSA based on premiums paid by Procacci. In 2005, Procacci requested BCI reduce its costs, but BCI would not meet Procacciâs proposal. Procacci then notified BCI that it would take its business elsewhere. BCI asked Procacci to reconsider, and in the process, disclosed to Procacci how much it paid to WSA as its broker. The amount was higher than Procacci believed WSA had been earning, but there was no dispute that BCIâs statements about WSAâs compensation were true. As a result of BCIâs letter, Procacci terminated its contract with WSA. WSA sued BCI alleging that BCI tortiously interfered with the WSA/Procacci contract by disclosing the amount of WSAâs compensation. BCI argued that it could not be liable for tortious interference because what it said was true, or otherwise justified and privileged. At trial, the jury found that BCI did interfere in the WSA/Procacci contract. BCI appealed, and the appellate court reversed the trial courtâs judgment. The appellate court adopted a section of the Restatement of Torts, which said that truth is a defense to a claim of tortious interference. WSA maintained that the Restatement was not applicable according to Pennsylvania law. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and adopted the Restatement defense that truth is a defense to claims of tortious interference with contractual relations. The Court affirmed the decision of the appellate court.

This appeal challenged the small employer group health coverage act (Act), which establishes requirements for insurance carriers to offer health insurance benefit plans to small employers in Michigan. Priority Health sought a declaratory judgment from the Office of Financial and Insurance Services (OFIS) so that it could allocate a small portion of insurance premiumsâ costs to employers, lessening the financial burden on employees. Priority Health would not renew contracts with employers who did not agree to pay a portion of the premiums. Both the Court of Appeals and the Commissioner of the Office of Financial and Insurance Services (OFIS) concluded that âminimum employer contribution provisionsâ are inconsistent with the Act. They reasoned that an employerâs failure to pay a minimum percentage of its employeesâ premiums is not among the reasons in the Act that a carrier can use to refuse to renew an insurance plan. The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court and OFISâ interpretation of the Act. The Court found that just because the Michigan Legislature did not include an employerâs refusal to pay according to a minimum contribution provision as among the reasons for not renewing a contract for benefits, the [Priority Health] provision was unreasonable or inconsistent with the Act. In general, âunless a provision directly conflicts with the enumerated reasons [of the Act], it may be included in a plan so long as it is reasonable and not inconsistent.â The Court remanded the case to the OFIS for further proceedings.

Respondent Lincoln General Insurance Companyâs insured drove a rental car under the influence of methamphetamines, and led police on a high-sped car chase that ended when he struck a vehicle containing Petitioner Julie Bailey and her son. Her son was killed. The insured pled guilty to five felonies, including second-degree murder. The insured assigned his rights to Petitioner to collect on a $1 million excess-insurance policy issued by Lincoln General. Lincoln General denied coverage for damages caused by the insured, relying on an exclusion in the rental agreement that voided coverage if the car was used to commit a crime that could be charged as a felony. The trial court and the court of appeals held that the criminal-acts exclusion of the policy was enforceable. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courtsâ decisions to uphold the criminal-acts exclusion of the insurance policy, finding that Lincoln Generalâs use of the exclusion was a proper exercise of its freedom to contract and provide coverage or damages caused by fortuitous events instead of for damages caused by intentionally criminal acts.

Claimant Cynthia Auck appealed the district courtâs order that found Respondent Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI) acted with substantial justification when it refused to pay her benefits on the death of her husband. By this refusal, Ms. Auck was precluded from seeking attorneyâs fees. The Supreme Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding for Respondent. The Court affirmed the lower courtâs decision, and dismissed Ms. Auckâs claim for attorneyâs fees.

Appellants appealed an order revoking their pro hac vice admissions in connection with a putative class action suit where the suit alleged that appellants' clients breached supplemental cancer insurance policies that they had issued. At issue was whether the district court erred in revoking appellants' pro hac vice status where the revocation was based on motions appellants filed in response to plaintiffs' request for class certification, chiefly a motion to recuse the district judge based on his comments during an earlier hearing. The court vacated the revocation order and held that, even though the recusal motion had little merit, the district court erred in revoking appellants' pro hac vice admissions where it did not afford them even rudimentary process.

Grubbs Infinity ("Grubbs"), the insured, sued Universal Underwriters of Texas Insurance Company ("Universal") for underpayment of its insurance policy claim after Grubbs suffered hail damage to buildings on its property. At issue was whether the party demanding appraisal had waived its right to insist on the contractual procedure when the parties disagreed, but neither sought appraisal until one had filed suit. The court conditionally granted Universal's petition for writ of mandamus and directed the trial court to grant Universal's motion to compel appraisal where Universal had not waived its appraisal right and where Grubbs failed to demonstrate a showing of prejudice.

Owatonna Clinic-Mayo Health System ("Clinic") sued its insurer, Medical Protective Company ("Medical Protective"), claiming that the company had breached its obligation to defend and indemnify the Clinic in a medical malpractice suit that had resulted in a judgment against it. At issue was whether the district court erred in ruling as a matter of law that the Clinic's notice to Medical Protective, of a potential claim against it, conformed to the insurance policy requirements and whether the Clinic's belief that it was at risk was objectively reasonable. Also at issue was whether the Clinic was entitled to pre-judgment interest. The court affirmed the judgment and held that the Clinic was deemed to have filed a timely notice with Medical Protective where the information that Medical Protective received would obviously alert a reasonable insurer to the likelihood of possible allegations of liability on the Clinic's part. The court also held that Medical Protective's challenge to the district court's finding, that the Clinic's belief that it was at risk was objectively reasonable, was meritless where the quoted policy language set an exceedingly low bar. The court further held that the district court did not err in awarding pre-judgment interest under Minn. Stat. 60A.0811, subd. 2(a) where the statute was unambiguous; and, in the alternative, if the statute was ambiguous, the court construed it against the insurer.