Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Roger Hooban sued Unicity International for breach of a distribution agreement. The district court entered summary judgment for Unicity, holding that Hooban was not a party to the agreement and lacked standing to sue for its enforcement. Unicity then filed a motion for attorney fees under Utah's reciprocal attorney fees statute, Utah Code Ann. 78B-5-826. The district court denied the motion on the ground that section 826 was inapplicable given that Hooban was not a party to the underlying contract. The court of appeals reversed, interpreting the Supreme Court's opinion in Bilanzich v. Lonetti to dictate a fee award in litigation that is based on a written contract where the contract allows at least one party to the litigation to recover fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding section 826 authorized the court to award fees to Unicity because, had Hooban's theory of the case prevailed in the district court, he would have been a party to the contract and the contract would have allowed Hooban to recover fees.

When Client allegedly failed to pay Firm as agreed under their contract, Firm sued Client for breach. Client counterclaimed for breach of contract and negligence. Client also filed a third-party complaint against Firm's Owner, alleging that Owner was Firm's alter ego and seeking to hold Owner liable for any judgment entered against Firm. The trial court entered (1) a directed verdict on the third-party complaint, and (2) judgment in favor of Client on Firm's breach of contract claim and on Client's counterclaim against Firm. Owner later sought attorney fees under the reciprocal attorney fees statute, Utah Code Ann. 78B-5-826, arguing that, as the prevailing party in the third-party action, he was entitled to a fee. The trial court denied Owner's request, concluding that Owner was not a party to the contract as required to trigger the statute. The court also denied Owner's request for costs. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the court of appeals' decision as to attorney fees under its analysis in Hooban v. Unicity International Inc.; but (2) reversed the court of appeals' decision as to costs based on its reading of Utah R. Civ. P. 54(d). Remanded.

Ira B. Warne executed a partial revocation of and amendment to the Ira B. Warne family protection trust, the purpose of which was to terminate the interest of one of Ira's sons, Thomas Warne, who had been designated as a beneficiary in the original trust instrument. On summary judgment, the district court (1) invalidated the partial revocation based on the Supreme Court's holding in Bans v. Means; and (2) held that Thomas was entitled to one-half of the personal property of Ira's estate pursuant to the distribution provisions of Ira's will. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the partial revocation complied with Utah Code 75-7-605, which statutorily overruled the holding in Banks; and (2) the distribution of Ira's personal property was governed by the terms of the trust, rather than by Ira's will, and therefore the district court erred in awarding Thomas one-half of that property. Remanded for consideration of whether Ira's partial revocation was a product of undue influence.

Miriam Salazar purchased an insurance policy from United Automobile Insurance Company and El Sol Insurance Agency (collectively, United), rejecting underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage by signing United's waiver. After Salazar was involved in an accident, Lopez sued United, arguing that United must provide her with UIM coverage because the waiver did not provide the required reasonable explanation of UIM coverage. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of United. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the waiver did not contain a reasonable explanation, and Lopez was therefore entitled to UIM coverage of $25,000 under the UIM statute. The court then remanded the case with instructions for the district court to enter judgment in favor of Lopez in the amount of $25,000. The Supreme Court held that the court of appeals (1) did not err in finding that United failed to provide a reasonable explanation of the purpose of UIM coverage and when it would be applicable; but (2) erred in instructing the district court to enter judgment for Lopez in the amount of $25,000. Remanded with instructions to determine the amount of damages Lopez actually sustained.

Plaintiffs William and Donna Judson secured a default judgment against Wheeler RV Las Vegas on a complaint asserting breach of contract and misrepresentation claims arising out of the Judsons' purchase of a recreational vehicle from Wheeler. Wheeler sought to set aside the default judgment, asserting surprise or excusable neglect in its failure to answer the complaint, suggesting that Wheeler was the wrong party because its predecessor was the entity that sold the Judsons their RV, and questioning their district court's jurisdiction over Wheeler. The district court denied Wheeler's motion. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that Wheeler failed to make a "clear and specific proffer" of a meritorious defense required as a predicate for setting aside a default judgment under Utah R. Civ. P. 60(b). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under the simple pleading standard set forth under Rule 60(b), Wheeler's meritorious defense allegations were sufficient. Remanded to resolve the issue of whether Wheeler established the "surprise and excusable neglect" predicate for setting aside the default judgment.

The parents of a child who suffered an injury during an adult softball game sued the United States Specialty Association (USSSA) and several other defendants. At the time of the accident, USSSA was insured by United States Fidelity and Guarantee Co. (USF&G). USF&G assumed the defense of USSSA, and a jury entered a verdict against USSSA. USF&G posted a bond of $4 million to secure the remainder of the judgment and, simultaneously, filed an action in federal court seeking a judicial declaration that it could not be compelled to pay more than the $2 million policy limit. USSSA later moved for partial summary judgment, contending that USF&G had no right to restitution against its insured for the amounts paid in excess of policy limits. The Supreme Court accepted certification to answer questions of law that controlled the parties' motions, answering (1) an insurer may not seek restitution based on the theory of unjust enrichment where there is an express contract governing the subject matter of the dispute; and (2) an insurer's right to reimbursement from an insured affects the parties' risk relationship and therefore may only arise under the express terms of their insurance contract.

Ohio Casualty insured Cloud Nine from 2001 to 2002. Unigard Insurance insured Cloud Nine from 2002 to 2005. Edizone, LC sued Cloud Nine in federal district court, alleging injuries that began during the last three months of Ohio Casualty's policy period and continued throughout Unigard's policy period. The federal district court ruled that the insurers must equally share the total defense costs they incurred in defending Cloud Nine against the Edizone suit. The Supreme Court accepted certification to answer whether the defense costs in Edizone should be allocated between Ohio Casualty and Unigard under the "equal shares" method set forth in the "other insurance clause" of Ohio Casualty's policy, or, in the alternative, because the policies were issued for successive period, whether those defense costs should be allocated using the time-on-risk method described in Sharon Steel Corp. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. The Court concluded that the "other insurance" clauses did not apply to successive insurers. Accordingly, defense costs should be apportioned using a modified version of the Sharon Steel method that divides responsibility for defense costs between the two insurers in proportion to their time on the risk.

In 2000, a fire destroyed a business location of Stone Flood and Fire Restoration Inc., spurring years of litigation with its insurer, Safeco Insurance Company of America. After Stone Flood and its two shareholders, James and Patrice Stone, sued Safeco in 2007, the district court dismissed all claims against Safeco. The court concluded (1) Stone Flood's claims on the insurance policy were filed three days beyond the applicable statute of limitations and were therefore barred; (2) the Stones were not insureds and lacked standing to bring individual claims under the policy; and (3) the Stones lacked standing to bring a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) because their alleged injuries were merely derivative of the corporation's. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) the district court's calculation of the tolling of the limitations period was incorrect and a correct calculation saved Stone Flood's claims under the insurance policy; and (2) the district court properly concluded the Stones were not insureds and lacked standing to sue under the policy, and their claim of IIED failed for lack of a distinct, non-derivative injury. Remanded.

Aequitas Enterprises and Interstate Investment Group entered into a real estate contract for the sale of 388 properties, all located outside the state. Aequitas subsequently sued Interstate Investment for breach of contract. To protect its interest in the properties, Aequitas also filed a motion requesting an extraterritorial prejudgment writ of attachment on all the properties. The district court granted Aequitas's motion for prejudgment writ of attachment and entered an order vesting title to all the properties in Aequitas. The Supreme Court reversed the district court and vacated its order, holding that the state's rules of civil procedure did not authorize a district court to enter an order directly affecting interests in real property located in other states.

The underlying dispute in this appeal revolved around the issue of who was contractually obligated to pay workers' compensation benefits to an employee of Employer. The Supreme Court found that Employer's Insurer was required to pay workers' compensation benefits for all of Employer's employees and remanded the case. The district court entered a final judgment. Instead of filing a notice of appeal within thirty days of the district court's judgment, Insurer filed an "objection to judgment." Insurer then filed its notice of appeal within thirty days of the district court's order disposing of that motion. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to address the appeal as (1) Insurer did not file its notice of appeal within thirty days of the district court's final judgment, and (2) Insurer failed to file a postjudgment motion that would toll the time for appeal or one that the Court had jurisdiction to review.