Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

SUNZ Insurance Company (“SUNZ”) appealed from the denial of its motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration of the crossclaims filed in a complex insurance dispute. SUNZ argued the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the crossclaims between non-diverse parties in the underlying interpleader action and otherwise erred by denying arbitration.   The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of the crossclaims. The court explained arbitration agreements are generally favored under federal law. Further, a court may not rule on the potential merits of the underlying claim that is assigned by contract to an arbitrator, even if it appears to be frivolous.Here, the Program Agreement sets forth the terms and conditions of the Policy and contains the disputed statements pertaining to collateral, costs, and fees. The Policy cannot be read without the Program Agreement, which explicitly controls the administration of the Policy and only becomes binding and enforceable after its execution. While the other party’s crossclaim alleges that SUNZ breached the Policy, it is the Program Agreement that drives the question of liability. And, under the Program Agreement, both parties agreed to submit to arbitration any disagreement regarding its terms. This is a challenge to the contract’s validity that, under Buckeye, shall be considered by an arbitrator, not a court. Thus, the district court erred when it denied SUNZ’s alternative motion to compel arbitration. View "SUNZ Insurance Company v. Butler American Holdings Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from a Minute Order and Order on Motion for Entry of Stipulated Judgment. Plaintiff sued Defendants for breach of contract based upon Defendant’s failure to repay a promissory note. The parties then entered into a settlement agreement (Settlement Agreement), and subsequently into an agreement they both refer to as the “Forbearance Agreement.”The parties’ dispute centers on whether the Forbearance Agreement completely satisfied Defendants obligations under the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff contended that the trial court erred by (1) interpreting the Forbearance Agreement to be a full release of 'Defendants obligations under the Settlement Agreement; (2) interpreting the Forbearance Agreement to have a duration “in perpetuity” rather than in effect for a “reasonable” amount of time under California Supreme Court precedent; and (3) failing to apply judicial estoppel to bar Defendants from asserting that the Forbearance Agreement was anything other than a brief forbearance of the Settlement Agreement.   The Second Appellate District held that the trial court’s ruling was proper, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to invoke the equitable doctrine of judicial estoppel. The court acknowledged that the Forbearance Agreement is lacking in typical “settlement in full” language. But it is also lacking in contrary language about there being any payments due in the future. It is this ambiguity that necessitates examining the contract language and surrounding circumstances, and which causes us to agree with the trial court’s interpretation of what the parties intended. Further, the forbearance agreement did not “forbear” the settlement agreement for a reasonable period of time. View "Filtzer v. Ernest" on Justia Law

In this case arising from losses that SAS International, Ltd. (SAS) claimed to have suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic the First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting General Star Indemnity Company's motion to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), holding that there was no error.SAS filed an amended complaint alleging a breach of contract count based on three coverage provisions and a declaration that the relevant policy covered its claims. The district court granted General Star's motion to dismiss all of SAS's claims, holding that COVID-19 and the virus that causes it were not covered causes of loss. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting General Star's motion to dismiss. View "SAS International Ltd. v. General Star Indemnity Co." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing the claims brought by Legal Sea Foods under Massachusetts law against Strathmore Insurance Co. following Strathmore's denial of Legal's request for coverage losses it claimed to have suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic, holding that there was no error.The second amended complaint asserted two breach of contract counts, one count of a violation of Chapter 93A of the Massachusetts General Laws, and a declaratory judgment count. The district court dismissed all claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by granting Strathmore's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. View "Legal Sea Foods, LLC v. Strathmore Insurance Co." on Justia Law

When the first Covid-19 cases appeared in Georgia, the governor declared a public state of emergency. Plaintiff’s restaurant played its part by suspending dine-in service. To recover the income, it was losing by closing its doors, Plaintiff quickly filed a claim with its insurer, Allied Insurance Company of America. Under Plaintiff’s “Premier Businessowners Property Coverage” policy, Allied agreed to “pay for direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property” if it was “caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss.”   Allied denied coverage. It found that Plaintiff’s closure was not caused by any “direct physical loss or damage.” And under the policy’s Virus or Bacteria exclusion, Allied refused to “pay for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly” by any “virus.” The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. It held that no “direct physical loss of or damage to” property occurred because the restaurant and its dining room “underwent no physical change.”   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling, holding that the harm does not extend to the intangible harm caused by Covid-19 or by a declaration of public emergency issued in its wake. Plaintiff alleged no actual change to its property. Even if the court assumed that the governor’s Covid-19 order caused loss because it deprived the restaurant of the use of its property, that does not result in a win for Plainitff. Allied agreed to provide for only one manner of loss—the physical loss of Henry’s property and to be physical it must be “tangible or concrete.” View "Henry's Louisiana Grill, Inc., et al v. Allied Insurance Company of America" on Justia Law

After a construction project fell through, Plaintiff sued Defendant. Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration. At issue in this case is whether the party who signed the contract on behalf of Plaintiff had authority to do so. The district court concluded they did not and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.The Eighth Circuit found that the signing party neither had actual or apparent authority to sign the contract containing the arbitration agreement. Apparent authority is created by the conduct of the principal, not of the agent. View "GP3 II, LLC v. Litong Capital, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the application the Fair Practices of Equipment Manufacturers, Distributors, Wholesalers, and Dealers Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code 57.001-.402, in this case did not violate the constitutional prohibition against retroactive laws in Tex. Const. art. I, 16.In the 1990s, Fire Protection Service, Inc. (FPS), orally agreed to be an authorized dealer and servicer of the life rafts manufactured by Survitec Survival Products, Inc. Nearly six years after the promulgation of the Act, which prohibits a supplier from terminating a dealer agreement without good cause, Survitec notified FPS that it was terminating their relationship. FPS sued for a violation of the Act. The district court entered judgment for Survitec. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit certified a question to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court answered that the application of the Act to the parties' agreement does not violate the retroactivity clause in article I, section 16. View "Fire Protection Service, Inc. v. Survitec Survival Products, Inc." on Justia Law

Daniel Hsu (Daniel) asked the Court of Appeal to reverse the trial court’s decision denying him need-based attorney fees under California Family Code section 2030. This case was a marriage dissolution proceeding between Daniel and Christine Nakamoto (Christine; together, the spouses). But the dispute at issue was between Daniel and his two siblings, Charleson Hsu (Chau) and Melissa Hsu See (Melissa). After their parents passed away, Daniel claimed Chau was concealing a portion of his inheritance. The siblings met to discuss Daniel’s claims and reached an agreement at the meeting, which Daniel documented on a two-page handwritten memorandum. Among other things, the Handwritten Agreement stated Daniel was to be paid $4 million. Several months later, the three siblings executed a formal Compromise Agreement for Structured Settlement. The Compromise Agreement contained many of the terms set forth in the Handwritten Agreement but did not mention the $4 million payment. The spouses claimed Daniel was never paid the $4 million, which would have been a community asset, and that it was still owed to Daniel under the Handwritten Agreement. Chau and Melissa argued the Handwritten Agreement was not a binding contract and that Daniel had already been paid $4 million through a separate transaction outside the Compromise Agreement. Chau, Melissa, and several business entities they owned (together, claimants) were involuntarily joined to this dissolution proceeding to settle this dispute. At trial, the primary question facing the lower court was whether the Handwritten Agreement or the Compromise Agreement was the enforceable contract. The court found in favor of claimants, ruling the Compromise Agreement was enforceable while the Handwritten Agreement was not. Meanwhile, over the course of Daniel’s litigation against claimants, the court awarded him $140,000 in attorney fees under section 2030. After the court issued a tentative ruling finding the Handwritten Agreement was not enforceable, Daniel requested an additional $50,000 for attorney fees incurred during trial plus another $30,000 to appeal. The court denied his request. The Court of Appeal found no error in the attorney fees ruling. View "Marriage of Nakamoto and Hsu" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying SR Construction, Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration because its master subcontract agreement (MSA) with Peek Brothers Construction, Inc. constituted a valid arbitration provision that applied to the parties' underlying dispute, holding that the dispute was arbitrable.On appeal, SR argued that the district court erred in holding that the underlying dispute fell outside the bounds of the parties' arbitration agreement.The Supreme Court agreed and reversed, holding (1) as applied, the MSA provision was broad, and an attendant presumption of arbitrability applied; and (2) Peek's dispute was presumptively arbitrable under the parties' agreement. View "SR Construction, Inc. v. Peek Brothers Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

The Knights of Columbus (“the Order” or “the KCs”) offers insurance products to its members. To promote and sell these insurance products, the Order contracts with Field Agents (“FAs”) and General Agents (“GAs”). FAs promote and sell insurance products to prospective customers, and GAs recruit and oversee FAs within a specified territory.  Plaintiff began selling insurance for the Order in 2006 as an FA. He worked in that capacity until he became a GA.   He brought suit against the KCs alleging breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith, and wage payment law violations. The district court dismissed each of the claims for failure to state a claim.   The Fifth Circuit partly disagreed and thus reversed in part and affirmed in part.  The court reversed the district court’s holding that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon relief which can be granted regarding a breach of contract in relation to Section 4 of the GA contract, Section 6 of the FA contracts to which he was a party, and Section 7(c) of Plaintiff’s original FA contract reversed the district court’s holding that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for the breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing in relation to the performance of Section 4 of the GA contract and Section 6 of the FA contracts. The court also reversed the district court’s holdings that Plaintiff failed to state a claim under both the Connecticut and Louisiana wage payment laws. The court affirmed the remainder of the district court’s judgment, including the dismissal of Plaintiff’s equitable claims. View "Ottemann v. Knights of Columbus" on Justia Law