Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

A homeowner hired a general contractor to perform a remodeling project, which included electrical work provided by a subcontractor. During construction, a fire occurred at the home, allegedly due to improper electrical work by both the general contractor and the subcontractor. The homeowner’s insurer paid for the fire damage and, acting as subrogee, brought a negligence and breach of contract action against both contractors. After the fire, the homeowner discontinued the services of both contractors and later hired a new general contractor to complete the project.The Minnesota District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the contractors, dismissing the insurer’s claims as time-barred under the two-year statute of limitations for defective construction claims involving improvements to real property, as set out in Minn. Stat. § 541.051, subd. 1. The district court found that the statute of limitations began to run when the homeowner terminated the contract with the original general contractor, concluding that the action was not timely filed.On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court interpreted the statute to mean that the statute of limitations does not begin until the entire construction project is terminated, substantially completed, or abandoned, not merely upon termination of the contract with the general contractor.The Supreme Court of Minnesota reviewed the case to resolve the statutory interpretation issue. The court held that, for purposes of the statute of limitations under Minn. Stat. § 541.051, subd. 1, the termination of the contract with the general contractor constitutes “termination … of the construction or the improvement to real property.” As a result, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the district court’s dismissal of the insurer’s claims as time-barred. View "American Family Insurance Company vs. NB Electric, Inc." on Justia Law

A church with property insurance sustained windstorm damage and submitted a claim to its insurer. When the parties could not agree on the amount of loss, the church invoked the insurance policy’s binding appraisal process. Each party selected an appraiser, and the appraisers agreed on an award, which the insurer paid and the church accepted. Afterward, the church alleged it discovered additional, previously hidden damages, and the insurer refused to pay more than the appraisal award. The church then sued, claiming breach of contract and seeking to set aside the binding appraisal based on the later-discovered damage.The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granted judgment on the pleadings to the insurer, finding that the appraisal award was binding and there was no evidence of fraud, misfeasance, or mistake to justify reopening the award. The Tenth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the church’s complaint pleaded mistake with sufficient particularity to satisfy Ohio’s Civil Rule 9(B), which requires that mistake be pled with particularity.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and held that a binding appraisal award may only be set aside for fraud or manifest mistake, defined as an egregious error undermining the intent of the agreement, not a mere error in judgment. The court further concluded that, to plead mistake with particularity under Civil Rule 9(B), the facts alleged must satisfy the elements of mistake. Since the church only alleged that additional, hidden damages were discovered after the appraisal, and did not plead facts constituting a manifest mistake by the appraisers, the complaint did not state a claim for mistake. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the Tenth District’s judgment and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint. View "One Church v. Bhd. Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

A male sophomore at a private university was accused by two female students of physically assaulting them in separate incidents involving alleged choking. Both incidents occurred during the 2023 academic year and involved evolving accounts from the complainants, contradictory witness testimony, and a lack of immediate reporting. The accused, John, denied the accusations and provided evidence and witnesses in his defense, including text messages and accounts from a sole eyewitness supporting his version of events. Despite this, the university’s internal investigation and disciplinary hearing were alleged to have been conducted in an imbalanced way, favoring the complainants, limiting the accused’s ability to present witnesses, and subjecting him and his witness to more rigorous questioning. The hearing concluded with John being found responsible and suspended for two years, which he appealed internally without success.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey reviewed John’s subsequent lawsuit against the university, which asserted claims under Title IX for sex discrimination as well as state law claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The District Court dismissed the complaint, holding that John’s allegations were insufficient to plausibly state a claim under federal or state law.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the District Court’s dismissal. The Third Circuit held that, taking the allegations as true, John had plausibly alleged that the university’s disciplinary process was influenced by both external and internal pressure to favor female complainants over male respondents, and that procedural irregularities and evidence of biased treatment supported an inference of sex discrimination under Title IX. The court also found that John plausibly alleged breaches of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing based on the university’s failure to follow its own procedures and to provide a fundamentally fair process. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Doe v. Princeton University Trustees" on Justia Law

At a U.S. Army depot in Pennsylvania, workers used pumps to transfer flammable paint thinner in a paint-mixing room. The depot hired a contractor, Finishing Systems, to upgrade these pumps and provide brief operational training. The pump manufacturer, Carlisle Fluid Technologies, installed the pumps and, per contract, agreed to assist and train personnel in their use, care, and maintenance. Carlisle’s employee provided limited training focused on operation, not safety procedures. Two months after installation, a worker, wearing ordinary clothing rather than required anti-static gear, released vapors while swapping drums. A static discharge sparked a fire, killing two employees and severely injuring another.The survivors and estates of the deceased sued several parties, including Carlisle, alleging negligence for failure to provide adequate safety training. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment in favor of Carlisle, concluding that it owed no duty of care to train workers on safety beyond its limited contract to provide operational instruction.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s summary judgment de novo. The Third Circuit held that, under Pennsylvania law and Section 324A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Carlisle’s duty was no broader than its contractual undertaking to sell, install, and provide basic operational training for the pumps. Carlisle did not increase the risk of harm, assume the depot’s safety training duties, or induce reliance for comprehensive safety training. The court found no legal basis to impose a broader duty. Accordingly, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s summary judgment for Carlisle. View "Byers v. Finishing Systems Inc." on Justia Law

In this dispute, an Argentine construction company issued dollar-denominated convertible debt notes to two trusts as part of a capital-raising effort. The parties entered into an indenture agreement, later amended in December 2019, which authorized the company’s Board of Directors to convert the notes into equity if certain financial thresholds were met. Section 1301 of the indenture vested the Board with authority to determine if these conditions were satisfied, provided their determination was free from “manifest error.” In 2020, the Board concluded that the threshold for conversion had been reached, relying on the company’s increased net equity following the issuance of new preferred shares. The trusts disagreed, contending the Board’s calculation was manifestly erroneous and that the actual value of equity sold did not meet the $100 million threshold required by the indenture.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York presided over a bench trial. The court dismissed the trusts’ claims regarding improper amendment and bad faith, focusing solely on the manifest error claim. After reviewing the evidence, the District Court concluded that the Board had manifestly erred by using metrics not contemplated by the indenture—specifically, shareholder equity changes and liquidation preferences—rather than the actual value of shares sold. The court found that the threshold for mandatory conversion had not been met, and GCDI breached the agreement by ceasing interest payments on the notes.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the District Court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. The Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment, holding that the Board’s determination constituted a manifest error under New York law because it failed to value the equity sold as required by the indenture’s plain terms. The judgment awarding damages to the trusts was affirmed. View "Tennenbaum Living Tr. v. GCDI S.A." on Justia Law

The city at the center of this case, after decades of financial distress and unsuccessful efforts to revitalize its economy through projects like a waste facility and a casino, declared bankruptcy in 2022. Prior to the bankruptcy filing, the city had pledged certain revenue streams—including payments from a casino, a waste facility, and agreements with the county—to secure debt issued through complex arrangements. These pledges were established through city ordinances and related contracts with creditors, including a trust indenture and a contribution agreement. The revenue streams and contractual rights to payment became the focal point of disputes in the bankruptcy proceedings.Bankruptcy Judge Ashely M. Chan of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania heard adversary claims from the city against its creditors. The creditors asserted that their liens on the pledged revenues survived the bankruptcy, arguing that their interests were statutory liens or arose from special revenues or proceeds exempt from discharge. The Bankruptcy Court held that the creditors had properly perfected their interests but determined that their liens were consensual, not statutory, and thus cut off by 11 U.S.C. § 552(a). The court also found that the pledged revenues were not "special revenues" under bankruptcy law and ordered that certain excess funds be transferred to the city. The creditors appealed these determinations.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's rulings on three key issues: the liens were not statutory and thus did not survive the bankruptcy; the pledged revenues were not special revenues; and the Trust Indenture required excess funds to be transferred to the city. However, the appellate court remanded for further proceedings on whether certain contract language conveyed a right to payment from which post-petition proceeds could be derived, and whether the creditors’ interests extended to pre-petition accrued amounts not yet paid to the city. View "City of Chester v. PHCC LLC" on Justia Law

A truck dealership and a manufacturer entered into a contract permitting the dealership to sell and service the manufacturer’s trucks in specified regions, with the manufacturer holding the right to appoint additional dealers in those regions at its sole discretion when it determined such appointments were warranted. The manufacturer appointed a new dealer within the dealership’s area, citing customer support needs and concerns about the dealership’s performance. Internal documents revealed the manufacturer had a plan to consolidate its dealer network for efficiency and improved sales, and had previously denied the dealership’s request to expand its franchise. Despite the appointment of the new dealer, the original dealership retained its nonexclusive right to sell trucks in its area.Prior to the current suit, the dealership protested before the Rhode Island Dealer Board, alleging statutory notice failures and bad faith denial of expansion, but the Board dismissed the protest as extraterritorial application of Rhode Island law. The dealership sought reversal in Rhode Island Superior Court, and the case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, which granted summary judgment to the manufacturer. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed summary judgment on certain claims and certified a question to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, which clarified statutory interpretation. Based on that, the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment on the statutory-notice claim.Upon de novo review, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the manufacturer acted within its contractual discretion in appointing a new dealer, as the contract only required the manufacturer to have a reason related to its business objectives, not to market conditions. The court also held there was no breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, as the manufacturer’s actions were consistent with the contract’s objectives. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer. View "Rhode Island Truck Ctr., LLC v. Daimler Trucks North America, LLC" on Justia Law

A professional track and field athlete received a bottle of Gatorade Recovery Gummies at an award ceremony hosted by Gatorade, which were labeled as “NSF Certified for Sport,” indicating independent testing for banned substances. After consuming the gummies, the athlete submitted a routine drug test that later returned positive for cardarine, a banned performance-enhancing drug, resulting in immediate suspension from elite competition. Subsequent investigation revealed that the gummies lot the athlete received had never been NSF certified, and Gatorade was aware of the mislabeling before distributing the product. The athlete suffered significant consequences, including loss of eligibility to compete, loss of a scholarship, and forfeiture of endorsement opportunities.The athlete initiated legal action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging strict products liability, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, violation of Texas’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, tortious interference with contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court dismissed all claims. It found no “cognizable injury outside of purely economic damages” for the strict liability, negligence, and misrepresentation claims, applying New York’s economic loss doctrine. Additional claims were dismissed based on statutory definitions and insufficient allegations of extreme conduct or distress.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. It affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the tortious interference, consumer protection, and emotional distress claims. However, the court recognized uncertainty in New York law regarding tort recovery for nonconsensual bodily changes detectable only by laboratory testing and the boundaries of the economic loss doctrine. Accordingly, the Second Circuit deferred decision and certified two questions to the New York Court of Appeals concerning the scope of the economic loss doctrine and whether the athlete’s injury is cognizable in tort under New York law. View "Asinga v. Gatorade Co." on Justia Law

The case concerns a dispute arising from an oral agreement between a homeowner and a contractor regarding the construction of a wheelchair ramp and a covered addition at the homeowner’s residence. The parties did not sign a written contract or agree to a specific price, instead communicating the project’s scope via text messages. The homeowner paid the contractor $73,000, including $30,000 for siding, but the project was plagued by construction delays, quality concerns, and code violations. Work ceased before completion, and the contractor did not deliver or install the siding. The homeowner and his wife continued living in the property, though it did not receive a final certificate of compliance.The homeowner sued in the District Court of Sweetwater County, asserting claims including breach of contract, negligence, and breach of warranty. During discovery, the homeowner failed to provide a specific calculation of damages, only indicating he would supplement disclosures later. Before trial, the contractor moved to exclude any evidence of damages not previously disclosed. The district court partially granted this motion, limiting the homeowner’s evidence to what had been disclosed. At a bench trial, the homeowner did not call his retained expert and offered only the total amount paid as the measure of damages. The district court concluded the oral contract was unenforceable due to indefinite terms and found insufficient evidence to support a damages award.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s rulings. The Supreme Court held that, because the homeowner failed to make an offer of proof regarding excluded damages evidence, there was no basis to review the trial court’s exclusionary ruling. The court further held that the district court’s finding—that the homeowner did not prove damages by a preponderance of the evidence—was not clearly erroneous. As the damages element was not satisfied, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the claims. View "Lacher v. Case" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on the government’s use of TETRA® software, developed by 4DD Holdings, LLC. The Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs sought to improve data interoperability for healthcare records and decided to purchase commercial software. After a competitive process, Systems Made Simple (SMS), the government’s contractor, selected TETRA. The government acquired licenses for specific numbers of TETRA’s components through an authorized reseller, Immix Technology, Inc., with explicit restrictions on copying. However, SMS exceeded license limits by making thousands of unauthorized copies during development and testing. 4DD discovered these excess copies and initiated negotiations, ultimately settling for payment for additional cores at the previously agreed license rate. The government later ended its use of TETRA.The United States Court of Federal Claims reviewed the case after 4DD filed suit for copyright infringement. During discovery, evidence destruction by the government led to sanctions. Following a bench trial, the court found the government had significantly exceeded its licenses and assessed damages using a hypothetical negotiation approach, considering factors like the existence of alternative software and the nature of the use, instead of defaulting to the rates in the licensing agreements. The court awarded $12,683,065.86 in damages, including compensatory and non-compensatory (statutory) damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit examined whether damages should be calculated by reference to the license rates or through a hypothetical negotiation. The court held that neither statute nor precedent compels using the license agreement rates for damages; courts may use hypothetical negotiations when material differences exist between licensed and infringing uses. However, the trial court erred by considering unforeseeable future events (like TETRA’s cancellation) in its damages analysis and by awarding non-compensatory statutory damages against the government. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "4DD HOLDINGS, LLC v. US " on Justia Law