Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

San Juan Coal Company and the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 953 entered into binding arbitration to determine whether union members on a certain schedule were entitled to holdover pay. The arbitrator concluded that the union members were entitled to the extra pay, but on review, the district court overturned the arbitral award. Because the arbitrator’s interpretation was colorable, the Tenth Circuit held that the district court improperly substituted its interpretation of the agreement: "[a]n arbitrator's interpretation of an agreement, even one that is flawed or based on questionable findings of fact, is due the utmost judicial deference. It matters not that a reviewing court might offer a more cogent reading of the agreement; the arbitrator's interpretation must be upheld wholly unless it is without any textual basis."

Plaintiff Arnold Oil Properties, LLC hired Defendant Schlumberger Technology Corp. to perform a specialized cement job on its deep-zone gas well. After Schlumberger poured too much cement into the well, Arnold sued for breach of contract and negligence. The district court concluded as a matter of law that an alleged exculpatory provision in the parties' contract was an indemnification provision and therefore did not bar Arnold's recovery. After a jury found the parties were in unequal bargaining positions, the district court denied Schlumberger's request to enforce the contractual limitation-of-liability provision. Schlumberger appealed the district court's denial of summary judgment and its denial of judgment as a matter of law. Finding that the evidence supported the jury's finding, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Arnold.

Defendant-Appellant International Bancshares Corporation (IBC) appealed the judgment of the district court in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee MCC Management of Naples (Colliers). The Colliers sued for breach of contract and fraud in a dispute over tax benefits. The dispute arose over the parties' disagreement over the entitlement to $16 million in benefits that accrued over a period of years in Local bank. Brothers and investors Miles and Barron Collier owned Local at the time the tax benefits arose. IBC now owns the bank. Local bought troubled loan assets. An agency (now the FDIC) guaranteed the value of the assets. In return, Local had to "share" some of its profits. When Congress repealed the deductions Local claimed on the losses from the assets, Local stopped paying its share from those assets and sued in federal court. The FDIC counterclaimed for non-payment. The Townsend Group had purchased Local Bank from the Colliers while the lawsuit was pending. Townsend required the Colliers promise to indemnify Townsend/Local in the event the FDIC won the lawsuit for more than the potential liability in the suit. Local eventually settled the suit for approximately $25-27 million. Townsend/Local and the Colliers signed a Resolution and Modification Agreement from which the Colliers claimed entitlement to the aforementioned tax benefits. Furthermore, through the "excess basis deduction," Local claimed a deduction on principal payments made to the FDIC and for attorney's fees. In addition to the dispute over the tax benefits, Local's former "tax director" quit over what she believed was the bonus owed to her for discovering the excess basis deduction. She began consulting for the Colliers and notified them of the millions in deductions that Local claimed. IBC counterclaimed against the Colliers, and added third-party claims against the former tax director for breaching confidentiality and tortious interference with contract. The Colliers and tax director prevailed after a jury trial. IBC appealed, arguing it was entitled a judgment as a matter of law. But after review, the Tenth Circuit found no error in the district court's findings at trial.

Trinity Mortgage Companies, Inc. (Trinity) appealed the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of David Dryer and Dryer and Associates, P.C. (Dryer). Trinity, formerly a mortgage brokerage company owned by Shawn Cremeen, entered into a franchise agreement with 1st Class Lending, Inc., which was owned by Dennis Junker and Richard Gheisar. In April 2007, Junker sued Gheisar and Trinity in Oklahoma state court for breach of contract, fraud, defamation, and conversion, all concerning his alleged wrongful termination. Between May 2007 and April 2008, Dryer represented Trinity, without a written contract. In October 2007, while the lawsuit was pending, Trinity entered into an agreement to sell most of its assets and to stop originating loans. Meanwhile, after Trinity failed to file an answer in the pending lawsuit, Junker moved for a default judgment against Trinity. Because Dryer failed to object to entry of default judgment against Trinity, the state court granted the motion against Trinity in January 2008. The another firm replaced Dryer as Trinity’s counsel, who unsuccessfully sought to vacate the default judgment against Trinity. Cremeen and Junker eventually entered into a settlement agreement concerning the lawsuit. Trinity confessed a final judgment in favor of Junker but the only recovery of this amount would be through his ownership interest in Trinity, which was the action against Dryer. Trinity moved for partial summary judgment on its malpractice and breach of contract claims. Dryer moved for summary judgment, contending that all claims were barred as a matter of law because Trinity unlawfully assigned them to Junker. In response, Trinity argued that there had not been an assignment of tort causes of action; there was never any collusion between Trinity and Junker; and that the malpractice case was not contingent upon disproving the merits of the underlying suit against Trinity. The district court granted Dryer’s motion for summary judgment and denied Trinity’s motion for partial summary judgment. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Dryer.

Plaintiff Kansas Penn Gaming, LLC (KPG), a limited liability corporation formed by Penn National Gaming, Inc. (Penn National), entered into a real estate sale contract with HV Properties of Kansas, LLC (HV), pursuant to which KPG purchased from HV parcels of land in southeast Kansas for $2.5 million for the purpose of seeking to develop a lottery gaming facility on the land. KPG ultimately chose not to develop a lottery gaming facility on the land. HV thus did not receive $37.5 million of payments that it had hoped to receive from KPG under the contract. KPG filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that it did not breach the terms of the contract. HV filed a counterclaim alleging that KPG breached the terms of the contract. HV also filed a separate action against Penn National alleging breach of Penn National’s obligation as guarantor to make the payments due under the contract between KPG and HV. The district court consolidated the two cases and granted summary judgment in favor of KPG and Penn National. Following the entry of judgment, the district court awarded attorneys' fees and expenses to KPG and Penn National. HV appealed these rulings. Upon review of the trial court record and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's order.

Defendant-Appellant, The Siebel Living Trust Dated 7/27/93 (Trust), appealed a district court’s order denying the Trust’s motion to recover its attorney fees and costs pursuant to a real estate sales contract with Plaintiff-Appellee Michael J. Ward (Ward). In addressing the question of whether the Trust or Ward was the "prevailing party" (and thereby entitled to recover reasonable fees and costs under the contract), the Tenth Circuit followed Colorado law to review the competing claims of the parties to the contract. Although Ward recovered the commission he sought, he did not recover against the Trust. The Trust was successful defending itself from Ward's claims brought against it and, therefore, as between Ward and the Trust, the Trust prevailed. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Plaintiffs DISH Network Corporation and DISH Network LLC (Dish) filed a diversity action in the District of Colorado seeking a judgment declaring that Dish's insurers had a duty under Colorado law to defend Dish in a patent infringement suit. The district court held that the underlying complaint did not allege an "advertising injury" under the policies issued to Dish by the five defendant Insurers. The court granted Insurers' motion for summary judgment, and Dish appealed. In its amended complaint, Ronald A. Katz Tech. Licensing (RAKTL, the Plaintiff in the underlying suit) alleged that Dish had infringed one or more claims in each of twenty­ three patents. Applying Colorado law, the district court concluded that a claim for patent infringement could "properly give rise to coverage, or even the specter of coverage, such that an insurer will have a duty to defend." For purposes of the summary judgment motion, the court ruled that RAKTL's reference to "customer service functions" in its complaint was sufficient to allege that Dish engaged in "advertising." The court granted summary judgment for Insurers without addressing the third element of its test-­- causation --or the additional arguments certain insurers had raised under their individual policies. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the RATKL complaint potentially alleged advertising injury arising from the misappropriation of advertising ideas. The Court therefore reversed and remanded for further proceedings: "the scope of advertising injury coverage in this case is at least ambiguous with regard to patent infringement allegations. Although the cases are rare in which an allegedly infringed patent is itself an advertising idea rather than merely an advertised product, ... we hold that '[d]epending on 'the context of the facts and circumstances of th[e] case,' patent infringement can qualify as an advertising injury if the patent 'involve[s] any process or invention which could reasonably be considered an 'advertising idea.'"

This was the second appeal in litigation arising from the Secretary of Health and Human Services' (HHS) decision not to enter into a self-determination contract with the Southern Ute Indian Tribe (Tribe). In an initial order, the district court ruled that HHS's decision was unlawful, granted summary judgment to the Tribe, and directed the parties to prepare a proposed order for injunctive relief. After the parties were unable to agree on the proposed order, the district court issued an interlocutory order in which it endorsed HHS's approach to the contractâs start date and contract support costs. The Tribe appealed, and the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On remand, the district court issued a final order, directing the parties to enter a self-determination contract including HHS's proposed language regarding the contract start date and contract support costs and denying the Tribeâs request for damages. Both parties appealed. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's determination that HHS was required to contract with the Tribe and regarding the contract start date, but reversed the court's decision regarding contract support costs.

Third-party defendant Providence Holdings, Inc. appealed a partial summary judgment that awarded Skilstaf, Inc. and Park Avenue Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Inc. (PACA) damages arising out of a loan dispute. Providence is an insurance holding company. Skilstaf and PACA loaned Providence $3.1 million under three âsurplus loan agreementsâ to help one of its subsidiaries carry out its insurance business and âmeet regulatory requirements as to capital and surplus.â Providence was required to repay Skilstaf and PACA âwhen and as interest and principal are received on the . . . surplus note[s],â In 2005, Providence canceled the surplus certificates and converted them to paid-in capital. In 2008, Providence sold its subsidiary. At some point thereafter, the subsidiary was placed into receivership and liquidated. Providence made interest payments under the surplus loan agreements to Skilstaf and PACA through November 2009, but failed to repay any principal. Skilstaf and PACA sued Providence, and moved for summary judgment, arguing that the surplus loan agreements mandated repayment of the loans when Providence converted the surplus certificates to paid-in capital. The district court agreed, stating that âthe indebtedness represented by the surplus notes was discharged by the conversion and that this discharge/conversion effected a repayment of the surplus notes within the meaning of the surplus loan agreements.â Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court for substantially the same reasons.

Eric Walters was a federal employee covered by a Standard Option health insurance plan (the Plan) administered by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City (Blue Cross). In November 2007 he went to Weight Loss Healthcare Centers of America, Inc. (Weight Loss) to inquire about surgical treatment for obesity. Because Weight Loss had no contractual arrangement with Blue Cross as either a preferred provider or a participating provider, Walters would expect to pay more than if he used a provider that had a contract. Nevertheless, Walters had outpatient laparoscopic surgery at Weight Loss to help him better control his weight. Although Walters obtained preauthorization from Blue Cross for the surgery, there was no indication in the record that he requested or received information about his out-of-pocket costs. Weight Loss billed Blue Cross for the procedure. The Blue Cross Plan paid $2,300 according to the Planâs benefit for out-of-network providers. Weight Loss appealed the payment to the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which held that Blue Crossâs interpretation of Waltersâs Plan was correct and it had paid the proper amount. The district court affirmed OPMâs decision. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit determined that OPM reasonably interpreted the Plan language. However, the Court reversed the district courtâs decision because OPM neither (1) reviewed the evidence that would show whether Blue Cross had correctly calculated the Plan allowance, nor (2) explained why such review was unnecessary.