Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, an Alabama granite processing business, worked with Defendant, a corporation that represents manufacturers in the sale of equipment used in the granite industry. Five years after the plant was completed, Plaintiff sued Defendant in Alabama state court, arguing, among other things, that Defendant breached its contract with Plaintiff. The district court granted summary judgment on the breach of contract claims. As to Defendant’s counterclaim, the district court determined Plaintiff had to pay the unpaid invoices and granted summary judgment on the counterclaim as well. Plaintiff appealed the district court’s orders   On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment finding that Plaintiff’s claim was time-barred. The court also affirmed the grant of summary judgment and denial of reconsideration as to Defendant’s counterclaim for unpaid invoices.     The court held that summary judgment is appropriate, because this is a contract for goods, and the UCC’s applicable four-year statute of limitations has passed. The court reasoned that Plaintiff has cited no record document or case to suggest that the contracting parties agreed to the markups as disguised service charges, and it seems more logical to conclude that a sale of equipment will include a margin of profit for the seller.   Further, the court held that Plaintiff’s argument on the statute of limitations defense is forfeited. The court reasoned that Plaintiff’s failure to raise the statute of limitations defense in its response to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is not an “exceptional condition” that merits the court using its discretion. View "Wadley Crushed Stone Company, LLC v. Positive Step, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a childhood victim of lead poisoning, assigned his rights to more than $900,000 in structured settlement payments to factoring companies for pennies on the dollar. However, as a result of the lead poisoning, Plaintiff lacked the capacity to understand the six structured settlement transfer agreements he entered into with the factoring companies—agreements that contained allegedly false statements about Plaintiff’s need for immediate funds and failed to disclose his limited mental capacity. Florida state courts—after holding hearings where Plaintiff was not present or represented, approved the six agreements based on the factoring companies’ incomplete set of facts. Plaintiff sued Defendants-appellees Transamerica Annuity Service Corporation and Transamerica Life Insurance Company (collectively, “Transamerica”), the companies that issued and funded his periodic payments before he assigned them to the factoring companies.   The Eleventh Circuit deferred its decision in Plaintiff’s breach of contract of claim, certifying to the New York Court of Appeals to answer: whether a plaintiff sufficiently alleges a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing if he demonstrates that the defendant drastically undermined a fundamental objective of the parties’ contract, even when the underlying duty at issue was not explicitly referred to in the writing? View "Lujerio Cordero v. Transamerica Annuity Service Corporation, et al" on Justia Law

Comegys, an independent insurance agency, had an independent contractor relationship with Safeco, a liability insurer. Comegys marketed Safeco insurance policies to the public. Comegys was allegedly negligent in procuring automobile insurance for one of its clients. Comegys had provided the client with an automobile insurance policy from Safeco, which the client eventually needed to rely on when he caused a car accident that ended in a motorcyclist’s death. Comegys offered to settle (and did settle through the errors and omissions policy it had with Endurance) the potential negligence claims the client had against it.   Relying on the indemnification provision between Safeco and Comegys, Endurance sued Safeco. Endurance wants to be indemnified by Safeco because the attorney Safeco provided to the client after the car accident pointed out the potential negligence claim the client had against Comegys.   The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s judgment finding in favor of Endurance’s claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court held that Safeco was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court reasoned that under Florida law, “[i]ndemnity contracts are subject to the general rules of contractual construction . . . [and] must be construed on the [express] intentions of the parties.” Here, there is no breach because Endurance never carried its burden at trial of explaining how Safeco breached the indemnification provision of the Limited Agreement. Further, Endurance did not argue that there is any express term of the Limited Agreement (besides the indemnification provision, which requires breach of an independent contract provision) that has been violated. View "Endurance American Specialty Insurance Company v. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois, et al." on Justia Law

The dispute arose out of a contract between Purple Shovel and two companies Omnipol and Elmex Praha (“Elmex”), for the manufacture and delivery of AK-47 assault rifles. The U.S. Special Operations Command (“SOCOM”) entered into a contract (the “SOCOM contract”) with Purple Shovel to deliver the rifles for a set price. Together, the parties entered into a “Cooperation Agreement.”   Purple Shovel never paid Elmex and, in turn, Elmex failed to pay Omnipol. Plaintiffs brought an action against several individuals allegedly involved in the formation of the two contracts and asserted six claims against Defendants. The District Court dismissed the amended complaint on all counts and with respect to all Defendants.   On appeal, Plaintiffs challenged the district court’s substitution of the United States as a party in the place of the civilian employees. They also challenged the district court’s finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the state law claims due to the bar of sovereign immunity.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s amended complaint. The court held that the district court was correct in concluding both that no additional discovery was needed on the scope-of-employment issue and that the United States had been properly substituted as Defendant. Further, the district court did not err in dismissing the claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Omnipol, A.S., et al. v. Christopher Worrell, et al." on Justia Law

Gulfstream, a Georgia corporation, and Oceltip, an Australian company, entered a sales agreement (“Agreement”). Gulfstream terminated the Agreement after Oceltip failed to pay the full amount or cure a defect within the ten-day cure period.Oceltip submitted a demand for arbitration to the AAA, seeking a finding that Gulfstream had anticipatorily repudiated the Agreement and that this conduct suspended Oceltip’s duties, allowing Oceltip to recoup the money it had paid, and entitled Oceltip to damages. On appeal, Oceltip asserts that federal jurisdiction is lacking. It also argues that the district court erred in confirming the arbitration award and denying vacatur because, in Oceltip’s view, the Georgia Arbitration Code’s standards for vacatur—not the FAA’s—govern, and the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the law.First, the court found it has jurisdiction under Sec 203 of the FAA. Next, in resolving the disagreement the court analyzed whether arbitrators’ “manifest disregard of the law” supplies a basis for vacating the award. Under the Georgia Arbitration Code, it does, but federal law—the New York Convention and its implementing statute (Chapter 2 of the FAA)—sets forth seven exclusive grounds for vacatur, which does not include “manifest disregard of the law.” The court concluded that the Agreement’s choice-of-law provision does not supplant federal standards for confirmation or vacatur of an arbitral award, reasoning that the plain meaning of the contractual language does not support Oceltip’s position. Thus, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation v. Oceltip Aviation 1 PTY LTD" on Justia Law

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) sued Ocwen Financial Corporation (“Ocwen”) and several of its affiliates claiming some of the company's mortgage-servicing practices violated federal law. The CFPB’s suit was resolved by a settlement agreement that was memorialized in a formal consent judgment. The CFPB sued Ocwen a second time, alleging various consumer-protection law violations occurring between January 2014 and February 2017. The district court granted summary judgment to Ocwen on res judicata grounds, reasoning that the 2013 action barred the lawsuit.The CFPB contends that the 2013 action’s res judicata effect should be controlled by that case’s consent judgment, not its complaint and that the underlying settlement agreement shows that the parties didn’t intend to preclude a challenge to any conduct occurring from 2014 onwards. The court reasoned that determining the preclusive effect of a consent judgment requires applying contract law principles. The court found that the res judicata effects of an earlier lawsuit resolved by a consent judgment are measured by reference to the terms of the consent judgment, rather than the complaint. Thus, CFPB may sue Ocwen for alleged violations that occurred between January 2014 and February 2017, if the claims are not covered by the consent judgment’s servicing standard, monitoring, and enforcement regime. View "Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Ocwen Financial Corporation, et al." on Justia Law

While driving the co-plaintiffs car, the plaintiff negligently changed lanes and caused a collision, seriously injuring another driver. At the time of the incident at-fault car’s owner had a GEICO insurance policy that provided bodily-injury coverage up to $100,000 per person. The victim and Geico assert they made offers to settle, but the parties never agreed. After the conclusion of the victim's lawsuit, plaintiffs sued GEICO for bad faith, seeking to recover the amounts of the final judgments entered against them that exceeded the $100,000 policy limit. They contended that GEICO had breached its fiduciary duty to them by failing to settle the victim’s case within the policy limit. Plaintiffs challenge Cawthorn v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co 791 F. App’x 60, 65 (11th Cir. 2019), arguing that Florida law doesn’t require that a verdict precede an excess judgment as a prerequisite to proving the causation element of an insurer-bad-faith claim. The court reasoned that plaintiffs' available coverage and final judgments entered against them constituted excess judgments. Thus, plaintiffs could prove causation in their bad-faith case because they were subject to excess judgments. Finally, the court declined to follow Cawthorn because that court incorrectly analyzed Florida's bad-faith law and is unpersuasive. View "Erika L. McNamara v. Government Employees Insurance Company" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit granted Drummond's motion to amend this court's judgment and vacated its prior opinion, substituting it for this opinion. The court denied as moot Southern Coal's petition for rehearing en banc.In this appeal, the court affirmed the district court's judgment against Southern Coal in the amount of $6,860,000 plus $1,473,699.87 in prejudgment interest for a total of $8,333,699.87. The court concluded that the district court correctly found that Southern Coal was not excused from performing under the contract. Furthermore, the court concluded that the district court correctly found the price escalation clause unenforceable. However, the court reversed as to the issue of attorneys' fees, remanding to the district court to award a reasonable sum to the prevailing party, Drummond. View "Southern Coal Corp. v. Drummond Coal Sales, Inc." on Justia Law

Secure intending to open an Illinois coal gasification plant, contracted with Siemens. Secure would buy gasification equipment on a payment plan; Siemens would provide updates and repairs to the equipment. The price of natural gas fell in 2009. Secure had to change its business plan and could not keep up with its payments to Siemens. In 2010, other clients discovered problems with Siemens’s gasification equipment. Siemens began implementing substantial modifications to its gasifiers. Because Secure's plant was not operational, Siemens left Secure out of the loop. In 2015, Siemens decided to exit the gasification market but promised to continue supporting its existing projects, including Secure’s, which had never been opened or used.In 2016, Secure sued Siemens, alleging fraud- and contract-based claims. Siemens, which was still owed 13 million dollars under the contract, filed a breach of contract counterclaim. Years into the litigation, the court denied Secure leave to amend its complaint, then excluded Secure’s expert witness for relying on an unreliable methodology, and granted Siemens summary judgment on Secure’s claims. Before trial on Siemens’s counterclaim, the court excluded Secure's evidence in support of its breach-of-contract affirmative defense. The jury returned a full verdict in Siemens’s favor. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Secure’s expert witness and its trial evidence and did not err in granting Siemens summary judgment. View "MidAmerica C2L Inc. v. Siemens Energy, Inc." on Justia Law

The district court found that Southern Coal had breached a contract with Drummond to transfer and store coal and awarded Drummond $6,860,000. Drummond appealed, arguing that the district court erred in finding a price escalation clause in the contract unenforceable. Southern Coal argued that Drummond’s actions excused Southern Coal’s obligation to pay Drummond under the contract. Both parties challenged the district’s court determination not to award attorneys’ fees to either party.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of $6,860,000. The district court correctly found that Southern Coal was not excused from performing under the contract and that the price escalation clause was unenforceable. Southern’s anticipatory repudiation argument lacked merit. The “root” of the Agreement was that Drummond would provide throughput services to Southern Coal. At no point did Drummond indicate that it would not perform that obligation. The district court correctly found the Agreement ambiguous and declined to reform the contract with respect to the price benchmarking clause. The court remanded for the award of reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party, Drummond. View "Southern Coal Corp. v. Drummond Coal Sales, Inc." on Justia Law