Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Seahawk filed suit against insurers for proceeds covering the physical damage to a drilling rig and the loss on a drilling contract. The court concluded that, because there were two occurrences, the district court properly denied Seahawk’s claim for the cost of repairs between February and December 2010. That court’s proximate-cause analysis was the correct legal standard for determining the number of occurrences, and the district court did not clearly err in finding that the February storm was not the proximate cause of the sequence of losses following the July storm. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in rejecting Seahawk’s claim under the Contract Provision. The concurrent-cause doctrine applies, and Seahawk could not recover because it failed to comply with the requirements of that doctrine. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment for the insurers. View "Seahawk Liquidating Trust v. Certain Underwriters" on Justia Law

This lawsuit stemmed from an agreement between the ART entities and the Clapper entities to purchase several apartment complexes. The parties organized the transaction so that an intermediate entity, the Partnership, would be the nominal buyer of the properties. The court found that the ART entities waived their challenge to the district court’s general application of the 19% prejudgment interest rate, its use of a compounding interest calculation, and its calculation of prejudgment interest through and including the date of judgment. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded with instructions for the district court to reenter the portions of its first judgment that were affirmed in Art Midwest II, and to recalculate pre- and postjudgment interest on the section 4.02(d) of the Partnership Agreement award with reference to the date of the first judgment, October 11, 2011. View "Art Midwest, Inc. v. Clapper" on Justia Law

Prosperity entered into contracts with a number of F&M bankers that included covenants not to compete, not to solicit, and not to disclose confidential information obtained while working at Prosperity. Prosperity sought to enforce the restrictive covenants under Texas law, but the district court denied Prosperity's application for injunctive relief. Texas generally allows covenants not to compete so long as they are limited both geographically and temporally, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. 15.50(a). Oklahoma generally does not, Okla. Stat. tit. 15, 217. The court concluded that, with respect to the noncompetition covenants, the choice-of-law provision is likely unenforceable,and the agreement is unlikely to fall within Oklahoma’s goodwill exception to its ban on noncompetition agreements. Therefore, the court affirmed the denial of Prosperity’s request for an injunction seeking to enforce these clauses because Prosperity cannot meet the important “substantial likelihood of success” factor. The court concluded that, with respect to the nonsolicitation covenant, the choice-of-law provision is likely enforceable. Therefore, the court remanded to the district court to permit it to decide in the first instance whether the agreement is enforceable under Texas law as is, or pursuant to a modification, and whether the other equitable factors warrant a preliminary injunction. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's conclusion that the nondisclosure agreement was likely enforceable and denied the request for a preliminary injunction on the ground that Prosperity failed to establish likelihood of success or irreparable injury. View "Cardoni v. Prosperity Bank" on Justia Law