Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

A collective bargaining agreement governs the relationship between Acument and its retired employees. Prior to 2008, the company paid healthcare and life-insurance benefits to qualified retirees. When Acument ended these benefits in 2008, a class of 64 retirees claimed that the company had violated the CBA in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Labor Management Relations Act. The district court granted Acument summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, characterizing the issue as “a matter of contract.” The relevant language states that the company “reserves the right to amend, modify, suspend, or terminate the Plan,” consisting of: retiree medical coverage; retirement income; disability income; and life insurance. View "Witmer v. Acument Global Tech., Inc." on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was whether the circuit court erred in allowing Plaintiff to take a nonsuit as a matter of right pursuant to Va. Code Ann. 8.01-380(B) based on its determination that Plaintiff's prior voluntary dismissal in federal court was not a nonsuit under section 8.01-380. In Virginia, a plaintiff may take only one nonsuit as a matter of right. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in finding that Plaintiff was permitted to take a nonsuit as a matter of right pursuant to section 8.01-380(B), holding (1) Va. Code Ann. 8.01-229(E)(3) does not confirm or suggest that a voluntary dismissal taken pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is a nonsuit for purposes of section 8.01-380; and (2) Plaintiff's prior voluntary dismissal in federal court was not substantially equivalent to Virginia's nonsuit in this regard. View "Inova Health Care Servs. v. Kebaish" on Justia Law

Defendant entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with a Union under which Defendant remitted contributions to an array of Union-affiliated benefit funds (the Funds). After the Funds commissioned audits of Defendant's books, the Funds demanded additional remittances for previously unreported work allegedly covered by the CBA. Defendant demurred, and the Funds sued Defendant. The district court awarded Plaintiffs $26,897 referable to covered work performed by a specific employee but denied recovery for other work. In a separate judgment, the court awarded Plaintiffs $34,688 in attorneys' fees. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the First Circuit, holding (1) the appeal was timely as to all issues, and the judgment on the benefits-remittance claim and the judgment awarding attorneys' fees were open to appellate review; (2) Defendant's failure to keep appropriate records concerning work covered by the benefit-remittance provisions of the CBA triggered a burden-shifting paradigm under which Defendant had to show which hours represented covered work and which did not, and here Defendant did not rebut the presumption; and (3) because the district court's fee calculation rested appreciably on the plaintiffs' lack of success in recovering remittances referable to unidentified employees, the fee award required recalculation. View "Int'l Union v. Ray Haluch Gravel Co." on Justia Law

In a 2009 opinion, the Sixth Circuit held that, in a 1998 collective bargaining agreement, CNH agreed to provide health-care benefits to retirees and their spouses for life, but rejected the suggestion that the scope of this commitment in the context of healthcare benefits, as opposed to pension benefits, meant that CNH could make no changes to the healthcare benefits provided to retirees. The court remanded for a determination of reasonableness with respect to CNH’s proposed changes to its retiree healthcare benefits, under which retirees, previously able to choose any doctor without suffering a financial penalty, would be put into a managed-care plan. The court listed three considerations: Does the modified plan provide benefits “reasonably commensurate” with the old plan? Are the proposed changes “reasonable in light of changes in health care”? And are the benefits “roughly consistent with the kinds of benefits provided to current employees”? On remand, the district court granted CNH summary judgment without reaching the reasonableness question or creating a factual record from which the determination could be made on appeal. The Sixth Circuit again remanded.View "Reese v. CNH America LLC" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether the workers' compensation courts had the authority to hear a petition filed by Insured to determine whether Insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify Insured under a policy for workers' compensation insurance. Insurer moved to dismiss Insured's petition, arguing that the compensation judge did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the petition because it asserted a breach of contract claim rather than one arising under the workers' compensation laws. The compensation judge disagreed and denied Insurer's motion to dismiss. The workers' compensation court of appeals (WCCA) affirmed, concluding that Insured was seeking a declaration that its insurance coverage with Insurer was still "in effect," a question within the compensation judge's authority to decide. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the workers' compensation courts had jurisdiction to decide the issues presented in Insured's petition for declaration of insurance coverage, as the real nature of the claim was whether Insured's insurance coverage was in effect, a question that was within the authority of the compensation judge to answer. View "Giersdorf v. A & M Constr., Inc." on Justia Law

Trinity terminated Dr. Assaf’s employment in 2009t. Assaf filed suit for breach of contract. While the case was pending, Assaf negotiated with Trinity’s new CEO, Tibbitts, Apparently without attorneys, Assaf and Tibbitts signed an agreement that provided that Assaf would receive a salary of $50,000 each year from 2009 to 2011. After that, his employment would automatically renew for a year unless either party gave notice of termination. Trinity refused to honor the agreement. The district court decided to enforce the agreement, but granted Trinity’s motion to bar any evidence of Assaf’s lost professional fees. Trinity never re-employed Assaf, claiming that “there is a policy against ordering specific performance of a personal services contract.” The court ordered Trinity to reinstate Assaf. Rather than reinstating Assaf, Trinity filed a “motion to clarify or stay.” The court reversed its earlier order, proceeded, without trial, to award Assaf his salary for the years 2009 through 2011, attorney’s fees, and compensatory damages. The court did not award any amount in lost professional fees. The Seventh Circuit reversed, declining to address specific performance because Trinity properly reterminated Assaf in 2011. The district court abused its discretion in barring evidence of lost professional fees. View "Assaf v. Trinity Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

The issue in this case was whether an appellate court has jurisdiction over an appeal from a trial court order confirming an arbitration award in part and vacating the award in part based on the existence of unresolved questions of law or fact necessary to a ruling, yet the trial court did not expressly direct a rehearing. The court of appeals held that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal, holding (1) the judgment was not final because it did not contain finality language or otherwise state that it was a final judgment and necessarily contemplated resolution of the remaining issues by way of a rehearing, and therefore, the appeal was interlocutory; and (2) no statute permitted an appeal in this case. The Supreme Court affirmed and, for different reasons, dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, holding (1) the appeal was interlocutory; (2) the Texas Arbitration Act did not provide jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal; and (3) there is no jurisdiction over arbitration awards that are incomplete unless, under certain circumstances, the parties file a writ of mandamus, which neither party here filed. View "Bison Bldg. Materials, Ltd. v. Aldridge" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought suit against Seagate, alleging a violation of Minnesota Statutes section 181.64, false statements as inducement to entering employment, and a common law claim of promissory estoppel. On appeal, Seagate argued, among other things, that the district court submitted an erroneous jury instruction. Plaintiff cross-appealed, arguing that if a new trial was ordered on the statutory claim, his promissory estoppel claim should likewise be retried. The court concluded that the district court erred in instructing the jury, and thus the court reversed. The court vacated the order dismissing the promissory estoppel claim and remanded for a new trial on both claims. The court also vacated the order granting attorneys' fees. View "Vaidyanathan v. Seagate US LLC, et al." on Justia Law

This case involved a claim by a former professional football player (the athlete) for benefits under the Maryland Workers' Compensation Act based on an injury during pre-game warm-up at the employer's stadium in Maryland. The employment agreement contained a forum selection clause providing, inter alia, that claims for workers' compensation benefits should be governed by Virginia law and that the Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission should have exclusive jurisdiction to resolve such claims. The Maryland Workers' Compensation Commission decided that it could properly exercise jurisdiction over the athlete's claim, that the athlete had sustained an accidental injury arising out of the course of his employment, and that the athlete's disability was causally related to his accidental injury. The circuit court upheld the decision. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the forum selection clause in the employment contract was ineffective to divest the Commission of the ability to exercise jurisdiction; and (2) injuries occurring while playing and practicing professional football are accidental injuries and thus compensable under the Act. View "Pro-Football, Inc. v. Tupa" on Justia Law

David Fesler, a former sales representative with Whelen Engineering Company, sued Whelen for breach of contract. Fesler alleging that he was an employee of Whelen, that policy documents issued by Whelen applicable to sales representatives created a unilateral contract of employment, and that Whelen breached that unilateral contract of employment by terminating him without just cause and by failing to provide him with notice of substandard performance and an opportunity to cure. The district court granted summary judgment for Whelen. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because Fesler was an independent contractor and not an employee, the policy documents could not have created a unilateral contract. Thus, the district court properly dismissed Fesler's claim for breach of contract. View "Fesler v. Whelen Eng'g Co." on Justia Law