Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Keizer Trailer Sales, Inc., which was insured by Continental Western Insurance Company (CWIC), sold three trailers to James Black. The installment purchase agreement stated that Keizer would remain the owner of the trailers under the purchase price was paid in full. Black was subsequently involved in an accident while pulling a Keizer trailer that resulted in one fatality and multiple injuries. Wrongful death and negligence claims were filed against Black and his business. CWIC filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that the commercial and umbrella policies it issued to Keizer on the trailer involved in the accident did not provide coverage for the claims arising from Black’s accident. The district court ruled against CWIC, concluding that Black was insured under the policies’ omnibus clauses because he was driving a vehicle owned by Keizer with Keizer’s permission. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Keizer retained ownership of the trailers, and because Black’s use of the trailers was with Keizer’s permission, coverage was available under the omnibus clauses of Keizer’s CWIC policies. View "Continental W. Ins. Co. v. James Black, JJ Bugs, Ltd." on Justia Law

Plaintiff executed a non-compete agreement restricting her ability to compete with an accounting firm that she sold to Defendant. Before the non-compete agreement expired, Plaintiff was awarded the position of office manager with a former client. Claiming that Plaintiff’s new employment was a violation of the non-compete agreement, Defendant stopped payments on a promissory note that was parties of the parties’ purchase agreement. Plaintiff responded by filing suit, alleging that Defendant breached the promissory note. Defendant counterclaimed, asserting that Plaintiff had breached the contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The district court concluded that Plaintiff had not violated the non-compete agreement and further found that Defendant had breached the terms of the promissory note. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly found that Plaintiff’s employment fell within an exception to the non-compete agreement and therefore did not err when it found Plaintiff did not violate the non-compete agreement. View "Pope v. Rosenberg" on Justia Law

Amy Landerman filed a complaint against Nathan Cook alleging that Cook fraudulently obtained shares of Landerman’s company, a Wyoming corporation. The district court entered judgment against Cook, finding that Cook committed fraud in the inducement and fraud in the execution. The total damages equaled $149,189. The district court also awarded punitive damages in the form of attorney fees in the amount of $114,063. The Supreme Court affirmed in all respects, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence for the district court to find fraud in the inducement; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding punitive damages; and (3) the district court’s finding that a contract, in the form of an oral agreement, existed was supported by the record. View "Positive Progressions, LLC v. Landerman" on Justia Law

Appellants and the company they own filed suit against David Fisher and other defendants, alleging claims arising from an unfulfilled real estate purchase agreement. Fisher filed an answer and counterclaim. Three years later, Fisher filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Appellants filed an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy case, requesting a determination that their claims against Fisher were not dischargeable in bankruptcy. The district court subsequently dismissed Appellants’ claims. Thereafter, the bankruptcy court ruled that Appellants’ claims against Fisher were dischargeable in bankruptcy. Appellants then filed a motion to modify the district court’s order dismissing the action and a renewed motion for summary judgment. The district court denied both post-dismissal motions, noting that the matter had already been dismissed. On appeal, the Supreme Court treated Appellants’ motions as motions for relief from the dismissal order pursuant to Wyo. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and affirmed, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellants’ motions. View "Bartel v. West" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-corporation brought a breach of contract action against Defendant-corporation. Defendant counterclaimed for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. A jury found that Plaintiff had breached the contract but awarded Defendant no damages. Plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in giving a breach of contract instruction or a challenged verdict form to the jury; and (2) the district court correctly exercised its discretion when its excluded Plaintiff’s expert testimony and reports and evidence involving a separate transaction between the parties. View "Black Diamond Energy, Inc. v. Encana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc." on Justia Law

In February 2011, two years and four months after Plaintiff learned she had been disinherited by her mother, Plaintiff filed a complaint against financial advisor Bradley Lott for fraud and constructive fraud. A jury found that Lott had committed constructive fraud but that Plaintiff knew or should have known before February 2007 that the fraud occurred. Based on the jury’s findings, the district court dismissed the action, concluding that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment, holding (1) the evidence did not support a finding that Plaintiff could have discovered the fraud sooner, and (2) therefore, the district court erred by dismissing the case based on the statute of limitations. Remanded for a new trial. View "Erdelyi v. Lott" on Justia Law

In 1997, the Courtenay C. Davis Foundation and Amy Davis (together, “Davis Interests”) entered into an agreement with the University of Wyoming Foundation and the Colorado State University Research Foundation (together, “University Foundations”) in which the Davis Interests donated land and other interests to the University Foundations subject to the terms of the agreement. In 2011, the University Foundations decided to sell the gifted property and listed it for sale. In 2012, the Davis Interests filed an action against the University Foundations seeking to enjoin the sale of the property. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that the donation from the Davis Interests to the University Foundations was a gift, that the agreement did not create an implied trust, and that only the attorney general had standing to enforce the terms of a charitable gift. View "Courtenay C. & Lucy Patten Davis Found. v. Colo. State Univ. Research Found." on Justia Law

Forsberg Engerman Co., an insurance agency, helped Lewis Holding Co., a trucking business, purchase insurance from Lexington Insurance Co. In 2011, one of Lewis Holding’s trailers was damaged. After Lewis Holding filed an insurance claim, NTA, Inc.’s adjuster examined the trailer and determined that the damage was due to mechanical failure or wear and tear. Lexington denied the insurance claim on the grounds that the damages were not the result of an upset or collision, but rather, the result of improper welding. Lewis Holding subsequently filed suit against Lexington, NTA, and Forsberg. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for Defendants where (1) the insurance agreement plainly and unambiguously excluded coverage for damages due to mechanical failure; (2) Forsberg, who was not a party to the insurance contract, could not be held liable under the insurance policy; and (3) Defendants had reasonable bases for denying Lewis Holding’s claim. View "Lewis Holding Co., Inc. v. Forsberg Engerman Co." on Justia Law

Defendant, a contractor, and Plaintiff, a subcontractor, entered into a two subcontracts for part of a road work project. Plaintiff invoiced Defendant for the work under both contracts, but when Defendant failed to pay the full amount, Plaintiff filed suit for breach of contract damages and storage fees for Defendant’s equipment and materials. Defendant counterclaimed, alleging that Plaintiff had been overpaid on the contracts and had converted Defendant’s equipment. Defendant moved to have the matter removed to federal court and filed its counterclaim in that court. The case was subsequently remanded to state court, where Defendant filed its counterclaim. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, claiming Defendant’s counterclaim was untimely. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the counterclaim. After a bench trial, judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant failed to demonstrate any basis to reverse the district court’s dismissal of its counterclaim on summary judgment; (2) alternatively, Defendant’s proposed counterclaim was moot; and (3) Plaintiff was entitled to attorney fees and costs. View "Motzko Co. USA, LLC v. A & D Oilfield Dozers, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellants decided to sell 850 acres of farmland but wanted to retain the mineral rights. Summit Title Services prepared the deeds for the sale, but he deeds did not reserve the minerals. Appellants were made aware of the omission at closing, insisted that the deeds be corrected, and were assured by Summit’s employee that the problem had been rectified. Six years later, Appellants learned that the minerals had been transferred with the land. Appellants filed suit against Summit, its general counsel Olen Snider, and Kuzma Success Realty, a brokerage firm involved in the transaction. The district court granted summary judgment for Appellees on all claims, concluding that Appellants failed to exercise due diligence to discover the error so as to extend the statute of limitation as a matter of law. The Supreme Court reversed the grant of summary judgment to Summit and Snider, concluding that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether Appellants exercised due diligence to discover errors allegedly made by Summit and that Snider failed to present a prima facie case that he was entitled to summary judgment. View "Moats v. Prof'l Assistance, LLC " on Justia Law