Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Kepali Group procured insurance for its fleet of vehicles through an agent at Brown & Brown of Florida, with Prime Property & Casualty Insurance Company issuing a commercial automobile policy for the period from January 23, 2019, to January 23, 2020. The policy included a provision for after-acquired vehicles, requiring notification within 30 days of acquisition for coverage. On December 6, 2019, a 2009 Toyota Sienna owned by Kepali was involved in an accident. Kepali had acquired the vehicle on September 30, 2019, and notified Brown to add it to the Prime policy. Prime issued a quote for the additional premium, but Kepali did not pay it, and Prime did not issue an endorsement for the vehicle.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled that Brown was acting as Kepali’s agent, not Prime’s, when attempting to procure insurance for the 3985 Toyota. However, the court concluded that the vehicle was covered under the policy’s after-acquired auto provision because Kepali met the two conditions: Prime covered all of Kepali’s vehicles, and Kepali notified Prime within 30 days of acquiring the vehicle. The court ruled that Prime had a duty to defend Kepali and Mr. Rodriguez but deferred ruling on the duty to indemnify until the underlying suit was resolved. The court granted summary judgment against Kepali and Mr. Rodriguez on their reformation and promissory estoppel claims and dismissed the remaining claims as moot.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. The court held that the after-acquired auto provision did not require payment of an additional premium within 30 days for coverage to continue. The court also found that the premium audit provision allowed Prime to compute the final premium and bill Kepali, and that Prime failed to perform this audit or send a bill. Therefore, Prime could not terminate coverage for non-payment without following the policy’s cancellation procedures. The court concluded that Prime had a duty to defend Kepali and Mr. Rodriguez in the underlying state court action. View "Prime Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Kepali Group, Inc." on Justia Law

Ty Whitehead suffered a serious head injury during a bicycle training ride for a charity fundraiser due to a large pothole on Skyline Boulevard in Oakland. Whitehead alleged that the City of Oakland breached its statutory duty to maintain a safe roadway. Prior to the ride, Whitehead signed a release and waiver of liability, which included a provision discharging the City from any liability for negligence.The Alameda County Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, holding that the release was valid and enforceable, thus barring Whitehead’s claim. The court reasoned that the release did not affect the public interest, relying on the multifactor test from Tunkl v. Regents of University of California. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision, also relying on the Tunkl framework.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and concluded that the release was against public policy under Civil Code section 1668, which prohibits contracts that exempt a party from responsibility for their own fraud, willful injury, or violation of law. The court held that an agreement to exculpate a party for future violations of a statutory duty designed to protect public safety is unenforceable. The court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the City to argue the doctrine of primary assumption of risk on remand. View "Whitehead v. City of Oakland" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, mostly elderly individuals, purchased lifetime membership contracts for an RV resort in Oregon. The resort was sold to the defendant, who refused to honor these contracts despite knowing that some plaintiffs relied on them for housing. Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract and elder abuse.The Coos County Circuit Court held a four-day jury trial, resulting in a verdict for the plaintiffs on both claims. The jury awarded $500,000 for breach of contract and $900,000 for elder abuse. The trial court entered a judgment reflecting these awards, including treble damages for the elder abuse claim.The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying its motions for a directed verdict on both claims. The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the breach of contract ruling but reversed the elder abuse claim, remanding it for dismissal. Both parties sought further review.The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the case. It upheld the trial court's denial of the directed verdict on the breach of contract claim, noting that the pleadings were amended to conform to the evidence, allowing the contracts to be binding as servitudes. The court found that the defendant's arguments about statutory preemption and lack of privity were not preserved for appeal.Regarding the elder abuse claim, the Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals, finding sufficient evidence that the defendant wrongfully took or appropriated the plaintiffs' property. The court concluded that the defendant's conduct, including purchasing the property at a reduced price with knowledge of the contracts and then refusing to honor them, could be seen as wrongful under ORS 124.110(1)(a).The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the Court of Appeals, and affirmed the judgment of the circuit court. View "Adelsperger v. Elkside Development LLC" on Justia Law

Moosehead Mountain Resort, Inc., and OFLC, Inc. (collectively Moosehead) filed a civil action against Carmen Rebozo Foundation, Inc., alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of good faith and fair dealing. The dispute arose from a promissory note for $6,350,000 executed by Moosehead and assigned to the Foundation, which allegedly misrepresented the amount due, impacting Moosehead's efforts to sell a ski resort.The Superior Court (Piscataquis County) denied Moosehead’s motion for summary judgment and the Foundation’s motion for relief under Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f), ordering a judicial settlement conference. The parties reached a settlement, agreeing to dismiss the case with prejudice. However, no docket entries were filed within the court's deadline, leading to the case's dismissal with prejudice. Moosehead then filed a motion for reconsideration and to vacate the settlement agreement, which the court denied. The Foundation's motion to enforce the settlement agreement was granted.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case. It affirmed the denial of Moosehead’s motion for reconsideration, finding no abuse of discretion. However, it vacated the judgment enforcing the settlement agreement, concluding that the court lacked jurisdiction to enforce it after the case was dismissed with prejudice. The court noted that the parties failed to take necessary steps to preserve the court's jurisdiction over the settlement agreement before the dismissal. The case was remanded for an order dismissing the motion to enforce the settlement agreement for want of jurisdiction. View "Moosehead Mountain Resort, Inc. v. Carmen Rebozo Foundation, Inc." on Justia Law

AMTAX Holdings 227, LLC ("AMTAX") filed a lawsuit against CohnReznick LLP ("CohnReznick") in federal court, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The dispute arose from CohnReznick's calculation of a purchase price for a property under a right of first refusal agreement, which AMTAX claimed excluded exit taxes required by Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code. AMTAX argued that this exclusion violated the agreement and federal law.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed AMTAX's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court applied the Grable-Gunn test to determine whether the state-law claims presented a substantial federal issue that would warrant federal jurisdiction. The district court concluded that AMTAX's claims did not meet the criteria for federal question jurisdiction, as they did not necessarily raise a substantial federal issue and allowing federal jurisdiction would disrupt the federal-state balance.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court's decision de novo. The appellate court agreed with the lower court's application of the Grable-Gunn test, finding that AMTAX's claims were primarily based on contract interpretation rather than federal tax law. The court held that the federal issue was not substantial enough to warrant federal jurisdiction and that exercising jurisdiction would disrupt the balance of state and federal judicial responsibilities. Consequently, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "AMTAX Holdings 227, LLC v. CohnReznick LLP" on Justia Law

In 2005, Island Pointe, LLC contracted Complete Building Corporation (CBC) to construct a condominium project, Palmetto Pointe at Peas Island. CBC subcontracted Tri-County Roofing (TCR) for roofing and related work. In 2014-2015, Palmetto discovered construction defects and sued CBC, TCR, and others for negligence and breach of warranty. Palmetto received $6,800,000 in settlements, including $1,000,000 from CBC's insurer for a covenant-not-to-execute and $1,975,000 from four other defendants.The trial began in May 2019, and the jury found CBC and TCR liable for $6,500,000 in actual damages and $500,000 each in punitive damages. The trial court apportioned 5% liability to two other defendants, making CBC and TCR jointly and severally liable for the remaining 90% of actual damages. TCR sought setoff for the $1,000,000 payment and the settlements from the four other defendants. The trial court denied TCR's motion for setoff, except for partial amounts conceded by Palmetto.The South Carolina Supreme Court reviewed the case. It reversed the court of appeals' decision, holding that TCR is entitled to set off the full $1,000,000 paid by CBC's insurer. The court affirmed the lower court's decision regarding the settlements from Novus, Atlantic, H and A, and Cohen's, agreeing that the trial court reasonably allocated the settlement amounts. The case was remanded to the trial court for the calculation of the judgment against TCR. View "Palmetto Pointe v. Tri-County Roofing" on Justia Law

Richard Edward Paul died intestate on October 3, 2022, leaving behind four daughters: Richann L. Ray, Dawn M. Paul Charron, Shelbi L. Paul, and Danita J. Paul. Richann was appointed as the Personal Representative of the Estate with the consent of her sisters. The Estate's significant asset was a cabin in Lincoln, Montana. The heirs could not agree on the disposition of the cabin, leading to conflict. Shelbi filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, alleging that Richann intended to sell the cabin contrary to their parents' wishes. The District Court denied the motion and ordered mediation for any disputed issues.The heirs continued to discuss the cabin's disposition, and Shelbi filed a motion to enforce a settlement agreement based on email communications, which the District Court denied, finding no valid settlement agreement. The heirs proceeded to mediation, resulting in a General Release and Mediated Settlement Agreement, which outlined a procedure for selling the cabin to one or more heirs within 30 days of an appraisal. The cabin was appraised at $234,000, but none of the heirs submitted a bid within the 30-day period. Richann listed the cabin for sale and later filed a motion to approve its sale for $106,100, considering the estimated repair costs. Shelbi opposed the motion, arguing the cabin was not fairly marketed.The Montana Eighth Judicial District Court approved the sale, finding the Agreement resolved all issues and the sale price was reasonable and in the best interest of the Estate. Shelbi filed motions to reconsider, which the District Court denied. Shelbi appealed the order approving the sale.The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's decision, concluding that the Agreement did not address the situation where no heir qualified to purchase the cabin within the specified time. The Court found that Richann, as Personal Representative, had the statutory authority to sell the cabin and that the sale was reasonable and in the best interest of the Estate. View "In re Estate of Paul" on Justia Law

Honeywell International, a Delaware corporation, and OPTO Electronics, a Japanese company, are competitors in the barcode-scanning equipment market. In May 2019, Honeywell sued OPTO for patent infringement, alleging that OPTO's barcode products infringed on seven of Honeywell's patents. The parties settled in January 2020 with a patent-licensing agreement, allowing OPTO to use Honeywell's patents in exchange for royalty payments. In March 2021, Honeywell audited OPTO and claimed that OPTO had underreported its revenues, leading to a dispute over the definition of "2D Barcode Products." Honeywell then sued OPTO for breach of contract in September 2021, alleging unpaid royalties.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina handled the case. A jury found that OPTO's laser-scanning barcode readers were "2D Barcode Products" but awarded Honeywell only $859,741. The district court also rejected OPTO's counterclaim of patent misuse, concluding that Honeywell had not engaged in such conduct. Both parties filed post-trial motions, which the district court denied. Honeywell sought attorney's fees, and OPTO moved to set aside the jury verdict, but both requests were denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court determined that it could not reach the merits because the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the appeal due to the patent-related counterclaim asserted by OPTO. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal, allowing the parallel appeal pending in the Federal Circuit to proceed. The main holding was that the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals involving patent claims and counterclaims, even if the primary dispute is over a contract. View "Honeywell International, Inc. v. OPTO Electronics Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

Vanessa Turner (formerly Vanessa Colley) and John S. Colley, III were divorced in 2012, with a marital dissolution agreement (MDA) and a permanent parenting plan incorporated into the final decree. Post-divorce, John filed a petition to terminate his transitional alimony obligation, alleging Vanessa was cohabiting with her fiancé. Vanessa defended the alimony award, and after extensive litigation, John nonsuited his petition before it was adjudicated on the merits.The Circuit Court for Davidson County awarded Vanessa $16,500 in attorney fees, finding it reasonably necessary for her to defend the alimony award. John appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that neither party was a "prevailing party" under the MDA or Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-5-103(c) because the petition was nonsuited before a decision on the merits.The Supreme Court of Tennessee reviewed the case and held that Vanessa was the prevailing party under both the MDA and section 36-5-103(c). The Court reasoned that the MDA's language entitled Vanessa to attorney fees as the prevailing party because she successfully defended the alimony award, achieving her objective of maintaining the status quo. The Court also held that under section 36-5-103(c), a party defending against a petition to alter or modify an alimony award can be considered a prevailing party even if the petition is nonsuited before a decision on the merits.The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, affirmed the trial court's award of attorney fees to Vanessa, and awarded her attorney fees on appeal. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine the amount of reasonable attorney fees for the appeals. View "Colley v. Colley" on Justia Law

Matthew Moriarty, the defendant, appealed a Superior Court order dismissing his amended counterclaim against Evoqua Water Technologies LLC and Neptune-Benson, LLC. Moriarty's counterclaim sought declaratory relief and tort damages, alleging violations of a non-compete agreement he signed in 2010 while employed by Neptune-Benson, Inc. (NBI). Evoqua acquired Neptune-Benson in 2016 and hired Moriarty in 2017. The plaintiffs sued Moriarty in 2018 for breaching the 2010 agreement, among other claims, and obtained a preliminary injunction in 2019 to enforce the agreement.The Superior Court dismissed Moriarty's counterclaim, citing the litigation privilege for statements made during judicial proceedings. Moriarty's counterclaim included claims for emotional distress, declaratory judgments, constructive discharge, misrepresentation, and interference with business relations, based on alleged false testimony by an Evoqua executive during the preliminary injunction hearing.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's dismissal. The Court held that the litigation privilege protected the executive's testimony, barring Moriarty's claims for emotional distress, misrepresentation, and interference with business relations. The Court also found Moriarty's declaratory judgment claim moot, as the non-compete agreement had expired in 2020, and his constructive discharge claim failed to state a valid cause of action. The Court concluded that Moriarty did not demonstrate that his working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign. Thus, the dismissal of Moriarty's amended counterclaim was upheld. View "Evoqua Water Technologies LLC v. Moriarty" on Justia Law