Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The plaintiff, a roofing business owner, sought a judgment declaring that the defendant, a workers' compensation insurance carrier, was obligated to defend and indemnify him in connection with a claim filed by his employee. The trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, determining that the defendant did not effectively cancel the workers' compensation insurance policy. The court found that the conflicting notices provided by the defendant, including a noncooperation notice and a cancellation notice, did not constitute an unambiguous and unequivocal notice of cancellation.The Appellate Court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the defendant effectively canceled the policy before the employee's injury by complying with the statutory requirements of § 31-348, which governs the reporting and cancellation of workers' compensation insurance policies. The plaintiff argued that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the cancellation notice effectively canceled the policy.The Supreme Court of Connecticut reviewed the case and concluded that insurers must strictly comply with § 31-348 when canceling a workers' compensation insurance policy. However, compliance with the statute does not supplant an insurer's obligations under contract law, which requires that a notice of cancellation must be definite, certain, and unambiguous. The court held that the Appellate Court incorrectly limited its analysis to the statutory compliance and failed to consider all relevant communications between the parties.The Supreme Court found that the defendant's notice of cancellation was not objectively definite and certain due to the conflicting noncooperation and cancellation notices, which provided indefinite and ambiguous information about the status of the plaintiff's insurance coverage. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court and remanded the case with direction to affirm the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff. View "Napolitano v. Ace American Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Steven Andrew Clem, the former owner of a defunct homebuilding company, appealed a judgment regarding the nondischargeability of a debt incurred from a failed home construction project. An arbitration panel had found Clem personally liable to LaDainian and LaTorsha Tomlinson for breach of contract and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). Clem subsequently filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and the Tomlinsons initiated an adversary proceeding. The bankruptcy court determined that Clem had obtained over $660,000 from the Tomlinsons through false representation or false pretenses, making the debt nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).The bankruptcy court's decision was based on findings that Clem had committed fraud by nondisclosure during the performance of the contract, including failing to inform the Tomlinsons about the switch from concrete piers to helical steel piers, failing to disclose the puncturing of a water line, and misrepresenting the purchase of a Builder’s Risk insurance policy. The court also found that Clem failed to provide proper accounting for the Tomlinsons' funds. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court erred in not applying collateral estoppel to the arbitration findings, which had already determined that Clem's actions did not constitute knowing violations of the DTPA or fraud. The appellate court found that the issues of fraudulent misrepresentation and nondisclosure had been fully litigated in the arbitration, and the arbitration panel had explicitly found no fraud or knowing DTPA violations.The Fifth Circuit reversed the bankruptcy court's judgment and rendered judgment in favor of Clem, holding that the Tomlinsons were collaterally estopped from relitigating the fraud claims and that Clem's conduct did not meet the criteria for nondischargeability under Section 523(a)(2)(A). View "Clem v. Tomlinson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, Shareholder Representative Services LLC, acting as the Equityholder Representative, filed a breach of contract action against Defendant, Renesas Electronics Corporation. The dispute arises from a 2021 Merger Agreement under which Renesas acquired Celeno Communications Incorporated. Plaintiff alleges that Renesas failed to pay two Earn-Out Milestone payments related to the development of a semiconductor chip, the [REDACTED] Product, as stipulated in the Merger Agreement. Plaintiff seeks damages and specific performance of certain contractual provisions.The Court of Chancery assigned the action to the current court on November 6, 2023. Plaintiff filed its Verified Complaint on October 31, 2023, and Renesas moved to partially dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff then filed a Verified Amended Complaint on February 28, 2024, asserting four breach of contract claims. Renesas sought dismissal of Counts One, Two, and Four. Plaintiff opposed the motion, and Renesas replied. A hearing was held on September 5, 2024, after which the court took the motion under advisement.The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware reviewed the case. The court granted in part and denied in part Renesas's partial motion to dismiss. The court denied the motion regarding Counts One and Two, finding that Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that the Tape-Out Milestone and Mass Production Milestone were met, despite Renesas's arguments to the contrary. However, the court granted the motion regarding Count Four, determining that specific performance of the meeting requirement was not warranted, as monetary damages would provide an adequate remedy. The court found that the contractual provision establishing irreparable harm was sufficient but noted that the ultimate relief sought was payment of the Earn-Out Amounts, not a meeting. View "Shareholder Representative Service LLC v. Renesas Electronics Corp." on Justia Law

Pharma Conference Education, Inc. entered into an agreement with the University of Tennessee Health Science Center to produce pharmaceutical continuing education programs "as is feasible." The Health Science Center terminated the agreement before any programs were held. Pharma sued to enforce the agreement, but the State argued that the agreement lacked consideration and was not a valid contract. The key issue was whether the promise to produce programs "as is feasible" constituted consideration or was an illusory promise.The Tennessee Claims Commission granted summary judgment in favor of the State, concluding that the agreement lacked consideration because Pharma's promise was illusory. The Court of Appeals affirmed, agreeing that Pharma's promise gave it complete discretion and was therefore illusory. Both courts relied on the deposition testimony of Pharma's president, John W. Smith, to support their conclusions.The Supreme Court of Tennessee reviewed the case and held that Pharma's promise to produce as many programs "as is feasible" constitutes adequate consideration. The Court explained that the term "feasible" has an objective meaning and does not give Pharma unfettered discretion. The Court also noted that the statutory presumption of consideration under Tennessee Code Annotated section 47-50-103 applies, and the State failed to rebut this presumption. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the Claims Commission for further proceedings, including consideration of the State's argument regarding mutual assent. View "Pharma Conference Education, Inc. v. State" on Justia Law

Eiden Construction, LLC (Eiden) entered into a subcontract with Hogan & Associates Builders, LLC (Hogan) for earthwork and utilities on a school construction project. Hogan sued Eiden and its bonding company, AMCO Insurance Company (AMCO), for breach of contract, claiming Eiden failed to complete its work, including draining sewage lagoons and constructing a fire pond. Eiden counterclaimed for unpaid work, arguing it was not responsible for draining the lagoons and that Hogan did not comply with the subcontract’s notice and opportunity to cure provisions. AMCO argued it was not liable under the performance bond because Eiden did not breach the subcontract and Hogan did not provide proper notice.The District Court of Uinta County found for Hogan on the claim regarding the sewage lagoons but not on other claims, ruling AMCO was not liable under the bond due to lack of notice. Eiden and Hogan both appealed. Eiden argued the court erred in finding it responsible for draining the lagoons and in awarding Hogan damages billed to an associated company. Hogan contended the court erred in not awarding damages for other work and in its calculation of prejudgment interest.The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. It held Eiden breached the subcontract by not draining the lagoons and that Hogan was entitled to recover costs for supplementing Eiden’s work. The court found Eiden’s late completion of the septic system justified Hogan’s directive to expedite lagoon drainage. It also ruled Hogan properly paid the supplemental contractors, despite invoices being sent to an associated company. The court rejected Hogan’s claims for additional damages, concluding Eiden complied with the notice to cure provisions for the fire pond and other work. The court also upheld the lower court’s calculation of prejudgment interest, applying the offset before calculating interest. View "Hogan & Associates Builders, LLC v. Eiden Construction, LLC" on Justia Law

Aenergy, S.A. (Aenergy) sought damages from the Republic of Angola for unpaid work related to power turbines to be installed in Angola. Aenergy had previously entered into contracts with Angolan utility subsidiaries to construct, supply, and maintain power plants and water infrastructure. The contracts involved General Electric (GE) turbines and were financed by a credit line from GE Capital. Aenergy alleged that a GE accounting error led to forged contract amendments, resulting in the Angolan government terminating the contracts and seizing turbines.Aenergy initially filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY), which dismissed the case on forum non conveniens grounds. The court found that Angola was an adequate alternative forum for the dispute. The Second Circuit affirmed this decision, emphasizing that Aenergy could bring similar claims in Angola, even if the breach-of-contract claim was time-barred. Aenergy's requests for rehearing and certiorari were denied.Aenergy then filed a new lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, focusing on breach of contract for unpaid work. The district court dismissed the case, citing issue preclusion based on the prior SDNY and Second Circuit rulings. The court also conducted a fresh forum non conveniens analysis, concluding that Angola remained the appropriate forum.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that issue preclusion applied because the adequacy of Angola as an alternative forum had already been determined in the previous litigation. The court found that Aenergy's trimmed-down complaint did not change the forum non conveniens analysis, and the Supreme Court of Angola's subsequent dismissal of Aenergy's administrative action did not alter the adequacy of Angola as a forum. View "Aenergy, S.A. v. Republic of Angola" on Justia Law

Employee Paul Westcott was terminated by his employer, Mack Molding Co., Inc., for lying about secretly recording conversations at work. Westcott sued the employer, claiming that his recording activities were protected under Vermont’s Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA) and Worker’s Compensation Act (WCA), and also alleged breach of contract and promissory estoppel.The Superior Court, Windsor Unit, Civil Division, granted summary judgment to the employer. The court concluded that Westcott’s recording activities were not protected under FEPA or WCA. It also found that Westcott could not sustain his breach-of-contract claim because the employee handbook clearly stated that employment was at-will and could be terminated for any reason. Additionally, the court held that Westcott’s promissory estoppel claim failed because his termination was not connected to any promise made by the employer regarding his return to work after short-term disability leave.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Supreme Court held that Westcott’s covert recording of workplace conversations did not constitute protected activity under FEPA or WCA. The court also agreed that the employee handbook did not create a binding contract that altered Westcott’s at-will employment status. Furthermore, the court found no basis for the promissory estoppel claim, as there was no specific promise breached by the employer related to Westcott’s termination.In summary, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer, concluding that Westcott’s recording activities were not protected, his employment was at-will, and there was no breach of a specific promise that could support a promissory estoppel claim. View "Westcott v. Mack Molding, Co., Inc." on Justia Law

In January 2019, Raymond Robinson and his son sued Emerald Homes, L.L.C., and 21st Mortgage Corporation in the Baldwin Circuit Court. Robinson had contracted with Emerald to purchase a mobile home, financed by a loan from 21st Mortgage. After tearing down his existing house in preparation for the new mobile home, the loan was not completed, allegedly due to Emerald and/or 21st Mortgage's refusal to finalize the transaction. The complaint included claims of breach of contract, misrepresentation, suppression, and negligence, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.The trial court compelled arbitration for claims against Emerald and granted summary judgment in favor of 21st Mortgage on Raymond's claims. The case proceeded to a jury trial on Robinson's claims against 21st Mortgage. The jury found in favor of Robinson on promissory fraud and the tort of outrage, awarding him $2,980,000 in total damages. 21st Mortgage's post-trial motions, including for judgment as a matter of law (JML), were denied.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case. It held that Robinson did not present substantial evidence of promissory fraud, as he failed to prove that 21st Mortgage had no intention to perform the loan promise at the time it was made or intended to deceive him. The court also found that Robinson did not meet all the conditions required for the loan, and the failure to close the loan was not due to any fraudulent intent by 21st Mortgage.Regarding the tort of outrage, the court held that the conduct of 21st Mortgage did not meet the extreme and outrageous standard required for such a claim. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "21st Mortgage Corporation v. Robinson" on Justia Law

In January 2023, the Keenums and Karibu Home Builders, LLC entered into a real-estate sales contract where the Keenums agreed to sell seven lots and construct a paved road before the closing date. The contract included dispute-resolution provisions for mediation and arbitration. The Keenums did not complete the road or appear for the closing. Karibu sued for specific performance and damages, claiming the Keenums breached the contract. The Keenums argued the contract was void due to Karibu's failure to meet obligations and the requirement for mediation and arbitration.The Colbert Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Keenums, dismissing the case with prejudice. The court concluded it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction due to the contract's mediation and arbitration provision, implying Karibu should have filed directly with the American Arbitration Association.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case de novo and found that the trial court erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction. The court held that the trial court had the authority to determine whether the mediation and arbitration provision applied and should have compelled arbitration rather than dismissing the case. The summary judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Karibu Home Builders, LLC v. Keenum" on Justia Law

Medical Recovery Services, LLC (MRS), a medical debt collector, sought to collect $460 from Katrina Melanese (now Katrina Sullivan) for an emergency room visit in September 2017. Sullivan was treated at Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center (EIRMC) by Intermountain Emergency Physicians (IEP), which did not collect insurance information directly from patients. Sullivan provided her insurance information to EIRMC, but IEP billed her outdated insurance information from a previous visit. When the outdated insurers denied the claim, IEP assigned the bill to MRS for collection.The magistrate court ruled in favor of Sullivan, finding that an implied condition precedent existed, requiring IEP to bill Sullivan’s insurance before seeking payment from her. The district court affirmed the magistrate court’s decision, agreeing that the condition precedent was not satisfied because IEP did not make reasonable efforts to obtain Sullivan’s correct insurance information.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that an implied-in-fact contract existed between IEP and Sullivan, and that the contract included a condition precedent requiring IEP to bill Sullivan’s insurance before seeking payment from her. The court found substantial and competent evidence supporting the magistrate court’s finding of the condition precedent, noting that Sullivan provided her insurance information to EIRMC and that IEP’s general practice was to bill insurance before seeking payment from patients. The court also rejected MRS’s argument that the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) prevented the application of the condition precedent in emergency room settings.The court concluded that IEP failed to make reasonable efforts to satisfy the condition precedent and, therefore, MRS could not collect the debt from Sullivan. The court awarded attorney fees and costs on appeal to Sullivan. View "Medical Recovery Services, LLC v. Melanese" on Justia Law