Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Scott Dahms hired Legacy Plumbing, LLC to perform plumbing work in a house built in the 1920s. Due to the age and condition of the piping, Legacy recommended replacing as much of the piping as possible. Dahms, however, wanted to keep costs low and did not want additional piping replaced. After Legacy completed the work, Dahms discovered a leak in the bathroom, which caused damage to the home. Dahms filed a lawsuit in small claims court for the cost to repair the damage from the leak. Legacy removed the case to district court, filed an answer, and moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Legacy and dismissed Dahms’s claim.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Legacy, concluding that there was no genuine issue of fact as to the source and cause of the leak. The court relied on affidavits and photographs provided by Legacy, which asserted that the source of the leak was the original lead and Oakum joint seal inside the main cast iron stack, not the PVC piping or hub part installed by Legacy. The court also concluded that the damage due to the leak was an incidental under the warranty clause of the contract between Dahms and Legacy.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the district court's decision, concluding that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to the source and cause of the leak. The court found that the district court had improperly weighed the evidence and determined witness credibility by considering the experience of the affiants. The Supreme Court also found that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether the damage was incidental to Legacy’s work under the agreement. The court denied Legacy's request for attorney’s fees and remanded the case back to the district court. View "Dahms v. Legacy Plumbing" on Justia Law

The case involves Indemnity Insurance Company of North America ("Indemnity") and Unitrans International Corporation ("Unitrans"). Indemnity, as the insurer of Amgen, a pharmaceutical company, paid for the loss of a pallet of pharmaceutical drugs that was damaged while being unloaded from a truck at an airport. The pallet was being transported from Amgen's facility in Dublin, Ireland to Philadelphia, and Unitrans, a logistics company, had been engaged to arrange the transportation. Indemnity, as Amgen's subrogee, sued Unitrans for breach of contract, negligence, and breach of bailment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted Unitrans's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Unitrans qualified as a contracting carrier under the Montreal Convention, and therefore, Indemnity's action was time-barred by the Convention's statute of limitations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed that contracting carriers are subject to the Montreal Convention, but found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Unitrans was a contracting carrier. The court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that a contracting carrier, as defined by Article 39 of the Montreal Convention, is a person that, as a principal, makes a contract of carriage governed by the Montreal Convention with a consignor, and an actual carrier performs the whole or part of the carriage by virtue of authority from the contracting carrier. The court found that there was enough evidence cutting both ways to create a genuine question as to whether Unitrans qualifies as a contracting carrier. View "Indemnity Inssurance Co. of North America v. Unitrans International Corp." on Justia Law

Whitetail Wave LLC, a Montana Limited Liability Company, sued XTO Energy, Inc., a Delaware corporation, the Board of University and School Lands of the State of North Dakota, the State of North Dakota, and the Department of Water Resources and its Director. Whitetail Wave claimed ownership of certain property in McKenzie County, North Dakota, and alleged that XTO Energy had breached their lease agreement by failing to make required royalty payments. Whitetail Wave also claimed that the State's assertion of an interest in the mineral interests associated with the property constituted an unconstitutional taking without just compensation.The District Court of McKenzie County granted summary judgment in favor of the State and XTO Energy. The court concluded that the State owned certain mineral interests within the ordinary high watermark as defined by North Dakota law. The court also found that XTO Energy was within the safe harbor provision provided by North Dakota law and did not breach the parties’ lease agreement when it withheld the royalty payments. The court awarded XTO Energy recovery of its attorney’s fees.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the judgment of the district court. The Supreme Court found that the district court did not err in dismissing Whitetail Wave's claim of an unconstitutional taking against the State, as the State's actions were limited to a title dispute. The Supreme Court also found that the district court did not err in dismissing Whitetail Wave's claim against XTO Energy for the non-payment of royalties, as XTO Energy fell within the safe harbor provision of North Dakota law. Finally, the Supreme Court found that the district court did not err in awarding XTO Energy a recovery of its attorney’s fees as the prevailing party. View "Whitetail Wave v. XTO Energy" on Justia Law

The case at hand involves United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel), an Australian producer and exporter of hot-rolled steel, BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd., and its affiliated U.S. importer, BlueScope Steel Americas, Inc. U.S. Steel alleged that the Australian company had reimbursed its U.S. affiliate for antidumping duties, a claim which BlueScope denied. The core dispute arose from differing interpretations of a supply agreement between the companies, which determined the pricing of the steel products.Prior to reaching the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the case was reviewed by the United States Court of International Trade. This lower court sustained the Department of Commerce's determination that BlueScope had not reimbursed its U.S. importer for antidumping duties. The court found that the agency's determination was supported by substantial evidence and was otherwise in accordance with the law.Upon reaching the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the court reviewed the decisions of the Court of International Trade de novo, applying the same standard of review used by the trial court in reviewing the administrative record before the agency. The appeals court upheld the decision made by the lower court, finding that the agency's determination was supported by substantial evidence and was in accordance with the law. The court also held that the agency did not err in its interpretation of the antidumping duty regulation, and therefore did not depart from an established practice. As a result, the appeals court affirmed the lower court's decision. View "United States Steel Corporation v. United States" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between Sheet Pile, LLC and Plymouth Tube Company. The conflict arose from an exclusivity agreement, in which Plymouth agreed to manufacture certain products only for PilePro, Sheet Pile's predecessor. Approximately a decade later, Sheet Pile accused Plymouth of breaching this agreement by selling those products to other companies, and they sued for fraud and breach of contract. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Plymouth.Sheet Pile then appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the summary judgment de novo and affirmed the lower court's decision. For the breach-of-contract claim, the court concluded that the claim was time-barred under Texas law, which has a four-year statute of limitations for such claims. The court also held that the discovery rule, which could have deferred the accrual of the cause of action, did not apply.Regarding the fraud claim, the court concluded that Sheet Pile failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact that Plymouth's representations were false when made. The court noted that there was no evidence that Plymouth sold the exclusive products to third parties in 2014 or 2015, and that Plymouth had expressly warned PilePro that it might begin selling to third parties if PilePro didn't hold up its end of the agreement. Therefore, the court affirmed summary judgment for Plymouth. View "Sheet Pile v. Plymouth Tube" on Justia Law

A Delaware corporation, Northern Natural Gas Company, sued another Delaware entity, Centennial Resource Production, LLC, in Nebraska for breach of contract. The dispute arose after Centennial, due to a cold weather event in Texas, was unable to use its reserved pipeline capacity and refused to pay the corresponding invoice. The district court concluded it had personal jurisdiction over Centennial based on Centennial's contractual consent and sufficient minimum contacts with Nebraska during the formation and implementation of their business relationship.Centennial appealed, arguing that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that Centennial consented to personal jurisdiction in Nebraska by joining Northern's Master Escrow Agreement that contained an express consent to jurisdiction in Nebraska and waived the personal jurisdiction defense. The court found that the Service Agreement, Joinder Agreement, and Master Escrow Agreement became one unitary unseverable agreement through the plain language of the Tariff. The court concluded that the forum selection clause found in the Master Escrow Agreement applied equally to the Service Agreement as one unitary agreement. Thus, due process was satisfied when Centennial consented to personal jurisdiction by entering into a contract that contains a valid forum selection clause, and Nebraska was not a forum non conveniens. View "Northern Nat. Gas Co. v. Centennial Resource Prod." on Justia Law

This case involves Stewart Johnston who was the defendant, cross-complainant, and appellant, against BTHHM Berkeley, LLC, PNG Berkeley, LLC, Michail Family 2004 Living Trust, Bianca Blesching, Scot Hawkins (collectively, BTHHM), and Holda Novelo and Landmark Real Estate Management, Inc. (collectively, Landmark). Johnston owned a property which he was to lease to BTHHM for a cannabis dispensary once permits were granted by the City of Berkeley. However, after the city approved the permit, Johnston refused to deliver possession of the property to BTHHM, leading to a lawsuit by BTHHM against Johnston.Following mediation, a two-page term sheet titled “Settlement Term Sheet Agreement” was signed by all parties. Johnston later wished to withdraw from the agreement. BTHHM and Landmark moved to enforce the term sheet pursuant to section 664.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which the court granted. Johnston failed to make the payments required by the enforcement orders. The court granted BTHHM's motion for entry of judgment, awarded prejudgment interest to BTHHM, entered judgment against Johnston, and dismissed his cross-complaint with prejudice.The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Four reversed the trial court’s award of prejudgment interest but otherwise affirmed the decision. The court held that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the term sheet’s language evinces the parties’ mutual agreement to settle the case according to its terms. However, the court concluded that the award of prejudgment interest was unauthorized as it differed materially from the terms of the parties’ agreement. View "BTHHM Berkeley, LLC v. Johnston" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of California considered whether a health care agent, who had signed two contracts with a skilled nursing facility on behalf of a principal, had the authority to sign an optional, separate arbitration agreement. The first contract ensured the principal’s admission to the facility, while the second made arbitration the exclusive method for resolving disputes with the facility. The court concluded that the execution of the arbitration contract was not a "health care decision" within the authority of the health care agent. Therefore, the facility’s owners and operators could not rely on the agent’s execution of the arbitration agreement to compel arbitration of claims arising from the principal’s alleged maltreatment. The court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Harrod v. Country Oaks Partners, LLC" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit examined a dispute between the plaintiffs, John and Dawn Harrell, and the defendant, Douglas DeLuca. The Harrells sued DeLuca, a general contractor from whom they purchased a home, for fraudulent inducement, constructive fraud, breach of contract, and violations of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of DeLuca regarding the Harrells’ fraud claims based on one category of misrepresentations. The case otherwise proceeded to a bench trial where the court found DeLuca liable for breaching the contract, but not for the remaining claims. The Harrells appealed, arguing that summary judgment was inappropriate and that the district court should have made explicit findings related to their constructive fraud and breach-of-contract claims.The Court of Appeals upheld parts of the lower court's decision but also vacated parts of it. It agreed with the Harrells that the summary judgment was inappropriate, vacated it, and remanded the case for additional proceedings. It also agreed that the district court should have made explicit findings related to one of each of their constructive fraud and breach-of-contract claims. However, it affirmed the resolutions of the remaining claims which were not challenged by the Harrells on appeal. The court remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Harrell v. Deluca" on Justia Law

This case involves a medical debt collection claim between Medical Recovery Services, LLC (MRS), a debt collection service representing Franklin County Medical Center (FCMC), and Cierra Moser, a former FCMC employee. MRS sought to collect debt for medical services provided to Moser at FCMC during her employment. FCMC offered a 50% discount to employees for unpaid medical bills after insurance payments. When Moser's employment ended, FCMC allegedly retracted the discount and assigned the debt to MRS.The magistrate court granted partial summary judgment favoring MRS regarding a minimum principal amount of debt owed by Moser and decided in favor of MRS on the issue of FCMC's right to retract the employee discount. However, the district court reversed the partial grant of summary judgment and remanded all issues for retrial due to disputed facts requiring retrial.On appeal, MRS argued that the district court erred in reversing the partial grant of summary judgment and in remanding all issues for retrial. The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the district court's decision, finding that there was a material dispute of fact over the amount of medical debt owed by Moser, which precluded a grant of partial summary judgment. Furthermore, MRS failed to ensure relevant transcripts were included in the record on appeal to the Supreme Court, which was fatal to its position that the district court erred in remanding for a retrial on all issues. View "Medical Recovery Services v. Moser" on Justia Law