Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

At issue in this consumer protection case was which Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure applied to a motion that sought relief from a default judgment of liability on a counter-complaint, where the motion was filed within thirty days of entry of the default, the trial court did not expressly direct the entry of judgment on the counter-complaint pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02, and neither liability on the original complaint nor damages on the counter-complaint were determined. The trial court entered default judgment in favor of the consumer on her counterclaims against Discover Bank and awarded the consumer damages. The court of appeals upheld the default judgment, vacated the award of damages, and remanded the case for a new hearing on damages. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Rule 54.02, rather than Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02, applies in this situation, but the same test applies to motions seeking relief from default judgment, under either rule, on the basis of "excusable neglect"; and (2) actual damages are recoverable for loss of available credit under Tennessee Consumer Protection Act where the plaintiff suffers a demonstrable loss of credit, proximately caused by the defendant, resulting in actual harm.

A construction company (Contractor) entered into a contract with the State to restructure an interstate interchange. The contract contained an incentive clause stating that no incentive payment would be made if work was not completed in its entirety by December 15, 2006. After the work was completed, Contractor filed a complaint alleging that the State had breached the contract by refusing to grant an appropriate time extension of the completion date, the disincentive date, and the incentive date. The claims commission (1) found that the contract contained a latent ambiguity requiring extrinsic evidence to interpret the contract, and (2) considered extrinsic evidence in concluding that Contractor was entitled to the maximum incentive payment and an extension of the contract completion date. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the contract was unambiguous and did not permit an extension of the incentive date, and (2) therefore, Contractor was not entitled to an incentive bonus. Remanded.

The president of a company signed a commercial credit application, which contained language immediately above the signature line stating that the individual signing the contract personally guaranteed amounts owed to the vendor. The company defaulted on the balance of the account, and the vendor filed suit against both the company and the president. The trial court granted summary judgment to the vendor, holding that the president had signed the contract both personally and in a representative capacity. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the president had signed the contract only in a representative capacity. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the application contained clear and unambiguous language sufficient to bind the president as an individual guarantor of the contract.

Plaintiff was injured while driving his employer's tow truck. Plaintiff filed suit against the driver of the other car involved in the accident, and later sought to invoke his employer's uninsured motorist policy in an amount equal to the liability coverage for bodily injury. The employer's insurer filed a motion for partial summary judgment, seeking to limit uninsured motorist coverage to the amount listed in the policy rather than the amount fixed by statute. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed, directing that the insurer's motion for partial summary judgment be granted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that when the insured signs an application indicating the selection of uninsured motorist coverage lower than the liability limits but neglects to initial a provision designed to confirm the selection of coverage less than the standard provided by statute, the requirement under Tenn. Code Ann. 56-7-1201(a)(2) that the selection be in writing has been satisfied.

In 1992, Appellant Wendell Baugh, III acquired Precision Services, Inc. from Ronald and Gayla Miller. The Millers agreed to finance the transaction. Mr. Baugh and his wife personally guaranteed a note executed by the corporation that purchased Precision's assets and the right to use its name. Appellee Herman Novak and his wife were friends and neighbors of the Baughs. In 1995, Messrs. Baugh and Novak bought a company together (Penske Plastics, Inc.), and by contract, were jointly and severally liable for the company's debts and obligations. Both gentlemen agreed to share equally in the company's profits. Mr. Baugh offered to sell one-half of Precision to Mr. Novak. Before he could sell any interest in Precision, Mr. Baugh had to obtain permission from the Millers. Because Mr. Baugh found the Millers difficult to deal with, he asked his attorney to draft an arrangement so that Mr. Novak could purchase an interest in Precision without the Millers' involvement. The document drafted by the attorney included an indemnity agreement by which the Novaks would agree to indemnify the Baughs for fifty percent of any payments they were required to make on the Millers' note and Precision's other debts. Mr. Baugh kept an office at Penske Plastics. Fire destroyed Penske's building in 2003. Of import, a banker-box that contained the original signed copies of the Baugh-Novak 1995 purchase agreement was consumed in the fire. The companies' insurance policies were not enough to cover all the damage caused by the fire. In 2005, Messrs. Baugh and Novak sold Penske Plastics to Alcan Baltec. Up until the time of the closing, Precision's loan obligations were paid from the revenue of Penske Plastics. In late 2005, Mr. Novak sent Mr. Baugh a note essentially "washing his hands" of Precision. In 2006, Mr. Baugh began paying Precision's obligation to the Millers from his personal funds. Mr. Baugh filed suit against the Novaks to enforce the terms of the 1995 agreement, arguing that he was entitled to indemnification and reimbursement for Precision's obligations. The trial court ruled in favor of Mr. Baugh. Mr. Novak appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in several of its evidentiary rulings at trial. The appellate court, on its own motion, reversed the trial court, holding that the purchase agreement and indemnity agreements were contrary to public policy and state law. The Supreme Court found that the evidence did not support the appellate court's holding. The Court reinstated the trial court's decision, and dismissed the Novak's appeal.