Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Appellant entered into a contingency fee agreement with Appellee, an attorney, which provided that Appellee was entitled to one-third of Appellant's primary award. The underlying action resulted in a judgment in favor of Appellant. Thereafter, the district court awarded a supplemental attorney fees award to Appellant. Appellant paid Appellee one-third of he primary judgment but did not pay Appellee any portion of the supplemental attorney fees award. After Appellant did not give Appellee one-third of the attorney fees award, Appellee filed an attorney's lien against his asserted one-third share. The district court denied Appellee's lien. Appellee subsequently filed an seeking a declaration that he was entitled to one-third of Appellant's attorney fees award. The district court entered judgment in favor of Appellee. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the agreement was unambiguous; and (2) under the agreement's terms, Appellee was entitled to one-third of both the primary judgment and the court-awarded attorney fees. View "Redd v. Hill" on Justia Law

In 2002, Plaintiff, the owner of a car dealership, executed two vehicle contracts with Henry Day Ford to preorder two Ford GT40s (later renamed the GT). After Henry Day learned it would not be receiving GT40s in its allocation, it refunded Plaintiff's deposit. Plaintiff did not object. In 2004 and 2005, Henry Day learned it had been allocated three GTs. Plaintiff demanded that Henry Day sell him two GTs at the price specified under the contracts. Henry Day instead offered to sell Plaintiff one GT for a higher price. Plaintiff refused the offer and filed a complaint alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The district court ruled in favor of Henry Day. The court of appeals reversed, holding (1) despite a latent ambiguity in the contracts regarding the identity of the vehicles to be sold, both parties intended that the contracts cover the vehicle now known as the Ford GT; and (2) Plaintiff did not intend to abandon the vehicle contracts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the vehicle contracts contained a latent ambiguity, but the ambiguity did not excuse either party's performance under the contracts; and (2) the issue of whether Plaintiff abandoned his rights under the contracts required a remand for additional findings. Remanded. View "Watkins v. Henry Day Ford" on Justia Law

Susie Stohm, the one-time CFO of ClearOne Communications, was charged with eight federal criminal counts relating to an investigation into certain accounting practices at ClearOne. Strohm was eventually acquitted of all but one count. Strohm and her counsel (Counsel) filed this action against ClearOne, alleging that ClearOne was required to indemnify Strohm for her criminal defense costs. The district court (1) ordered ClearOne to indemnify Strohm for her defense costs subject to certain restrictions, and (2) found that a contract between the parties entitled Counsel to charge ClearOne eighteen percent interests on the amounts that were billed to ClearOne but not timely paid and to collect the costs it expended in enforcing ClearOne's contractual obligation to indemnify Strohm. A unanimous court affirmed the district court affirmed the district court's indemnification decisions in large part, its rulings relating to contract termination rights, its reasonableness determination for fees in the criminal case, and its decision to enforce the eighteen percent interest rate. A majority of the court, however, reversed the district court's decision to allow Counsel to recoup its fees in the collection matter. Remanded. View "Strohm v. ClearOne Commc'ns, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was injured while participating in a guided horseback ride near Sundance Resort. Prior to the ride, Plaintiff signed a release (waiver) waiving her right to sue Defendants, Sundance-related entities (collectively, Sundance) for injuries caused by Sundance's ordinary negligence. Plaintiff appealed, contending that the waiver was unenforceable under the Limitations on Liability for Equine and Livestock Activities Act (Equine Act) and that it violated the public policy expressed in the Equine Act. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Equine Act does not invalidate preinjury releases for ordinary negligence, nor does the Equine Act evidence a public policy bargain struck by the legislature; and (2) therefore, the waiver is enforceable. View "Penunuri v. Sundance Partners, Ltd. " on Justia Law

At issue in this case were two agreements: a ground lease agreement between ASC Utah, Inc. (ASCU) and Wolf Mountain Resorts, and a specifically planned area (SPA) development agreement, which had thirty-six signatories, including ASCU, Wolf Mountain, the D.A. Osguthorpe Family Partnership (Osguthorpe). ASCU and Wolf Mountain began litigating claims involving both the ground lease and the SPA agreement. Shortly thereafter, Osguthorpe sued ASCU and Wolf Mountain, alleging that each party had breached a land-lease agreement distinct from the ground lease or the SPA agreement. The district court consolidated Osguthorpe's separate actions into ASCU's litigation. Osguthorpe later moved to compel arbitration on all the claims related to the SPA agreement, including the claims between ASCU and Wolf Mountain, to which Osguthrope was not a party. The district court denied Osguthrope's motion. Osguthrope withdrew its SPA claims from the case, leaving for appeal only Osguthrope's motion to compel arbitration of the SPA claims between ASCU and Wolf Mountain. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the disputes for which Osguthrope sought to compel arbitration were not subject to the SPA agreement's arbitration provision; and (2) furthermore, as a non-party to the disputes, Osguthrope had no contractual right to compel their arbitration. View "Osguthorpe v. Wolf Mountain Resorts, L.C." on Justia Law

Basic Research, LLC marketed the weight-loss product Akavar. Customers who purchased Akavar filed lawsuits against Basic Research claiming false advertising, defective product, and failure to perform as promised. Basic Research was insured by Admiral Insurance under a policy that provided coverage for "personal and advertising injury." After the underlying claims were filed, Basic Research invoked its coverage and asked Admiral to defend it. Admiral refused to defend, alleging that the underlying claims were not covered by the terms of the policy. Thereafter, Basic Research brought this suit for declaratory relief. The district court granted Admiral's motion for summary judgment, finding that the underlying claims were specifically excluded from coverage. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the asserted claims were not covered by the policy and were in fact squarely excluded by its terms; and (2) therefore, Admiral had no duty to defend Basic Research. View "Basic Research, LLC v. Admiral Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In 2005, Allen Grazer obtained a judgment against Gordon Jones and Richard Barney for breach of contract. To satisfy the judgment, property held by Jones and Barney was sold at a sheriff's sale and purchased by Grazer's attorney on his client's behalf. Jones and Barney assigned their redemption interests to the Olsen Trust, which attempted to redeem the property under Utah R. Civ. P. 69C(c). Grazer challenged that attempt as invalid because it was not in full compliance with Rule 69C(c). The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Olsen Trust, concluding the Trust had substantially complied with the rule. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed on somewhat different grounds, holding (1) Rule 69C(c) cannot reasonably be read to require superfluous service of documents on the party who was ultimately their source; and (2) the Olsen Trust's redemption was valid and enforceable despite alleged deficiencies under Rule 69C(c) because the Trust fulfilled all non-superfluous requirements of the rule. View "Grazer v. Jones" on Justia Law

Shawn Adel, a former employee of Westgate Resorts, a timeshare company, formed Consumer Protection Group (CPG) to right perceived wrongs stemming from Westgate's offer of certificates to consumers that were virtually irredemable. CPG solicited people who had received certificates to assign their claims to CPG. Westgate sued Adel, claiming intentional interference with existing and potential economic relations, conversion, breach of contract, and violation of the Utah Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Adel and CPG counterclaimed on behalf of 500 claimants, alleging breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and violation of the Utah Consumer Protection Act. The jury awarded actual economic damages of between $5 and $550 for each claimant and awarded each claimant punitive damages of $66,666. The Supreme Court vacated the jury's punitive damages award, holding that the award violated Westgate's procedural due process rights under Philip Morris USA v. Williams because the statements made by CPG's counsel during closing argument created a risk that the jury would improperly consider harm allegedly caused by Westgate to nonparties when it fixed its punitive damages award. Remanded for a new evaluation of the punitive damages award only. View "WestGate Resorts, Ltd. v. Adel" on Justia Law

Chad Jones sued his insurance company, Farmers Insurance Exchange, for breach of contract, bad faith breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress after Farmers denied his claim. Farmers defended by arguing that it did not breach its contract because Jones's claim was "fairly debatable." Farmers claimed this defense must be resolved through summary judgment. The district court granted Farmers' motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the fairly-debatable defense should not be resolved through summary judgment if reasonable minds could differ as to whether the defendant's conduct measures up to the standard required for insurance claim investigations. Remanded. View "Jones v. Farmers Ins. Exch." on Justia Law

The procedural background of the extensive litigation underlying this case was discussed in Madsen IV. Following the Supreme Court's decision in that case, Appellant Nancy Madsen filed a new complaint alleging grounds for the same relief that was sought by the earlier complaint. The new complaint was dismissed as barred by res judicata, and this appeal followed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the litigation preceding the filing of Appellant's new action definitively resolved her claims and erected a res judicata bar to any subsequent complaint raising claims that could have and should have been raised in that litigation. View "Madsen v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A." on Justia Law