Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company ("Travelers") appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Dianne and Martin Gray in the Grays' action arising from injuries Dianne suffered as the result of a motor-vehicle accident. In 2010, Lawana Coker and Dianne were involved in a motor-vehicle accident in Elmore County; Coker was without motor-vehicle insurance at the time of the accident. Two years later, the Grays filed in the trial court a three-count complaint naming as defendants Coker and Travelers and a fictitiously named defendant. Travelers answered the complaint, denying the material allegations therein and asserting certain affirmative defenses. Coker, however, failed to answer the complaint. In 2013, the Grays moved the trial court to enter a default judgment in their favor and against Coker, requesting that the trial court assess damages in the amount of $500,000 for Dianne and $50,000 for Martin. The Grays' motion requested no relief as to Travelers. Shortly thereafter, the Grays filed a new summary-judgment motion in which, for the first time, they sought relief against Travelers. The Grays did not base their summary judgment motion against Travelers on the ground that there was no genuine issue of fact as to whether tortious conduct by Coker caused them to suffer injury. Instead, they based their summary-judgment motion against Travelers solely on the fact that they previously had obtained a default judgment against Coker. In this regard, the Grays argued that they were entitled to a judgment as a matter of law against Travelers because, they said, "Travelers as a party defendant had notice and adequate opportunity to intervene and present any defenses and arguments necessary to protect its position with respect to the entry of or the amount of damages in the Default Judgment. By failing to do so, Defendant Travelers legally is bound by the judgment." After review, the Supreme Court reversed: because Travelers as the Grays' UM carrier, was not bound by the default judgment entered against Coker, Travelers was not required to submit evidence in opposition to a motion for a summary judgment that relied solely on that default judgment. Consequently, the trial court erred in entering a summary judgment in favor of the Grays and against Travelers. View "Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co. v. Gray" on Justia Law

During a highway paving project a storm caused recently applied primer to emulsify in rainwater. The oil splashed onto passing vehicles, causing damage. The vehicle owners brought claims against the State, which the State paid. A.M. Welles, Inc. (Welles), the general contractor on the job, reimbursed the State for what it paid to the vehicle owners. The State then sued Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. (Liberty), the insurer for the job, seeking indemnification for the costs that Welles did not cover. Welles, in turn, sued the subcontractors for the project, Montana Materials, Inc., RSJ, Inc., and GLJ, Inc. (collectively, “Jensen”), seeking indemnification under the subcontract. The district court granted summary judgment for Jensen on Welles’s indemnification claim and dismissed the State’s action against Liberty for failure to prosecute. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded, holding that the district court (1) erred in denying Welles’s motion for summary judgment, as Welles was entitled to indemnification under the subcontract; and (2) abused its discretion by dismissing the State’s action against Liberty for failure to prosecute. Remanded. View "A.M. Welles, Inc. v. Mont. Materials, Inc." on Justia Law

Footstar operated the footwear departments in various Kmart stores as though they were islands. Footstar employees could only work in those departments unless they had written permission from Kmart. In 2005, a Footstar employee tried to help a customer get an infant carrier off a shelf outside the footwear department and the customer was injured. She sued. Kmart sought indemnification from Footstar and its insurer, Liberty Mutual. A magistrate judge found that Footstar and Liberty Mutual both had a duty to defend beginning the day Kmart formally requested coverage since the injury was potentially coverable under the agreement between Kmart and Footstar and the insurance policy. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that neither Liberty Mutual nor Footstar had a duty to indemnify Kmart because the injury did not occur “pursuant to” or “under” the agreement between Kmart and Footstar. That agreement specifically precluded Footstar employees from working outside of the footwear department, where the injury occurred, and actions taken in contravention of the agreement were not “pursuant to” or “under” it. Liberty Mutual did not deny coverage in bad faith and that Kmart did not breach the relevant notice provisions such that Liberty Mutual and Footstar could withhold defense costs. View "Kmart Corp. v. Footstar, Inc." on Justia Law

A California resident owned an apartment building in Arkansas that was insured by a Michigan insurance company under a policy the owner obtained through an insurance agent in Arkansas. That policy included commercial property coverage for the Arkansas apartment building and commercial general liability coverage for the owner's property ownership business, which he operated from California. Other than writing this policy, the insurer did no business in California. Both the commercial property coverage and the commercial general liability coverage in the policy covered some risks, losses, or damages that could have arisen in California, but the dispute at issue here arose out of two fires that damaged the building in Arkansas. Initially, the insurer agreed to treat the two fires as separate losses but later reversed its position and took the position that both incidents were subject to only a single policy limit payment. As a result, the owner sued the insurer in a California state court for breach of contract and bad faith. The issue presented for the Court of Appeal's review was, under these circumstances, did the insurer have sufficient minimum contacts with California to allow the state court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the company in this action? The Court concluded the answer was "no." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's order granting the insurance company's motion to quash the service of summons. View "Greenwell v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co." on Justia Law

An adult passenger in a car was injured in a single-car accident. The passenger and his family brought suit against the vehicle’s unlicensed minor driver, the minor’s mother, the owner of the car, the insurance policy holder, the insurer, and the insurance adjuster who handled the claims arising from the accident. The passenger’s father attempted to raise a contractual interference claim, but the superior court concluded that the complaint did not state such a claim on his behalf. The superior court dismissed the father’s only other claim (intentional infliction of emotional distress), removed the father’s name from the case caption, and ordered the father to cease filing pleadings on behalf of other parties. After the superior court judge dismissed him from the action, the passenger’s father attempted to file a first amended complaint, which expressly stated his contractual interference claim on the theory that he was a third-party beneficiary of the contracts between his son and his son’s doctors. But the superior court denied the father leave to amend the complaint because the father had already been dismissed from the case. Following a settlement among all of the other plaintiffs and defendants (which the father did not join) the superior court granted final judgment to the insurer. The insurer moved for attorney’s fees against the father under Alaska Civil Rule 82, but the father never responded to that motion. The superior court granted the award without soliciting a response from the father, and the father appealed. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s order dismissing the father’s claims and denying leave to amend the complaint because the proposed first amended complaint was futile. But because the superior court had barred the father from filing any further pleadings in the case and had removed his name from the caption, the superior court had a responsibility to inform the self-represented father that he was permitted to file an opposition to the motion for attorney’s fees. Therefore, the Court vacated the fee award and remanded the case to the superior court to afford the father an opportunity to respond to the insurer’s motion for reasonable attorney’s fees. View "Bush v. Elkins" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a breach of contract claim against Zenith after Santana Morales, Jr. was crushed to death by a palm tree while working as a landscaper for Lawns. The Florida Supreme Court answered the following certified questions in the affirmative: (1) Does the estate have standing to bring its breach of contract claim against Zenith under the employer liability policy? (2) If so, does the provision in the employer liability policy which excludes from coverage "any obligation imposed by workers' compensation... law" operate to exclude coverage of the estate's claim against Zenith for the tort judgment? and (3) If the estate's claim is not barred by the workers' compensation exclusion, does the release in the workers' compensation settlement agreement otherwise prohibit the estate's collection of the tort judgment? The court concluded that, given the Florida Supreme Court's resolution of the certified issues, the district court correctly determined that the workers' compensation exclusion in Part II of the policy barred Zenith's coverage of the tort judgment against Lawns. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Zenith. View "Morales v. Zenith Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Cross-defendant Michael Tope appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of First American Title Insurance Company in a cross-action to recover money under a title insurance policy after default on a real estate loan to purchase and rehabilitate a home. The property was subject to a notice of abatement action issued by San Joaquin County requiring repair of defects in the rehabilitation of the residence. The subject of the suit was that First American allegedly breached the title insurance policy by failing to provide coverage for the notice of abatement action. Plaintiffs, investors in a real estate loan, sued defendants and cross-complainants Stockton Mortgage Real Estate Loan Servicing Corporation (SMRELS), Stockton Mortgage, Inc., Stockton Management & Development, Inc., and Ross Cardinalli Jr. (collectively cross-complainants) for damages arising from cross-complainants' alleged failure to follow up on the status of the release of a notice of abatement action. Cross-complainants, in turn, initiated this suit against First American, Alliance Title Company, and two of Alliance's employees for damages, indemnity, and declaratory relief arising out of First American's refusal to provide coverage under the title insurance policy, and Alliance's alleged representation, on behalf of First American, that it would obtain a release of the notice of abatement action prior to the close of escrow. First American moved for summary judgment mainly on grounds that the notice of abatement action was not covered under the title insurance policy, cross-complainants were not insured under the title insurance policy, and the preliminary title report relied on by cross-complainants was not a contract. The trial court granted First American's motion and entered summary judgment in its favor. Cross-complainants appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. View "Stockton Mortgage, Inc. v. Tope" on Justia Law

Petitioner Cogswell Farm Condominium Association filed a declaratory judgment action with respect to two exclusions in insurance policies issued by respondents Tower Group, Inc. and Acadia Insurance Company. The trial court held that the two exclusions at issue precluded coverage for petitioner's underlying lawsuit against Lemery Building Company, Inc. In 2009, Cogswell sued Lemery and others, alleging negligence, breach of contract, and negligent supervision in the construction of 24 residential condominium units. Cogswell asserted that the "weather barrier" components of the units – including the water/ice shield, flashing, siding, and vapor barrier – were defectively constructed and resulted in damage to the units due to water leaks. Because the units were sold at different times and the policies were in effect during two different time periods, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court erred in holding that one policy exclusion served as a bar for coverage for each unit after it was sold. Furthermore, the Court found that the other exclusion was subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in granting respondents summary judgment with respect to that exclusion. The trial court was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Cogswell Farm Condominium Ass'n v. Tower Group, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Kathryn Kipling sued State Farm Automobile Insurance Company in Colorado federal district court for breach of contract because it did not pay her benefits under four insurance policies issued in Minnesota. The court determined that she would be entitled to benefits under Colorado law but not under Minnesota law. It then applied tort conflict-of-laws principles to rule that Colorado law governed. After its review, the Tenth Circuit held that the court erred by not applying contract conflict-of-laws principles. The district court was reversed and the matter remanded for further consideration. View "Kipling v. State Farm Mutual Automobile" on Justia Law

Electrical problems at a plastic bag manufacturing plant led to an increased number of defective bags being produced. A dispute arose between the manufacturer and its insurer regarding what provision of the policy covered the losses associated with the defective bags and regarding what policy limit should apply to the manufacturer’s property loss. The district court submitted both issues to the jury. The jury awarded the manufacturer damages for breach of the insurance contract. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in sending the two questions to the jury because (1) categorizing the insured’s loss under the policy is a question of law and not a question of fact, and (2) determining which policy limit applies presents a question of law. Remanded. View "Fed. Ins. Co. v. Coast Converters, Inc." on Justia Law