Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Lawanda Small, a beneficiary and additional insured of her deceased husband's Allianz life insurance policy, filed a class action lawsuit against Allianz Life Insurance Company. She alleged that Allianz violated California Insurance Code sections 10113.71 and 10113.72 by failing to comply with notice procedures required to prevent policies from lapsing due to nonpayment of premiums. Small sought to represent two subclasses: the "Living Insured Subclass" seeking equitable relief to reinstate life insurance coverage, and the "Beneficiary Subclass" seeking damages from death benefits where the insured was deceased.The United States District Court for the Central District of California certified the class, finding that both subclasses satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b). The court granted summary judgment for Small and the class on their breach of contract and declaratory relief claims, ruling that Allianz improperly lapsed the policies by failing to comply with the Statutes. Allianz appealed, arguing that the district court erred in certifying the class and that the summary judgment orders violated the one-way intervention prohibition.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order certifying the class and vacated the summary judgment orders. The appellate court held that to recover for alleged violations of the Statutes, plaintiffs must show not only that the insurer violated the notice requirements but also that the violation caused them harm. The court found that individual questions of causation and injury predominated over common questions, making class certification inappropriate. Additionally, the court determined that Small was not an adequate representative with typical questions to represent both subclasses. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Small v. Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America" on Justia Law

Minority partners in various cellular telephone partnerships hired attorney Michael A. Pullara to pursue breach of fiduciary duty claims against the majority partner, AT&T. The client agreements allowed Pullara to hire joint venture counsel, and he retained Ajamie LLP. Both firms agreed to a 50% discount on their hourly rates in exchange for a contingency fee if they prevailed. After lengthy litigation, the minority partners reached a favorable settlement with AT&T. However, a dispute arose between Pullara and Ajamie over the fee division, leading Ajamie to file for a charging lien to secure its fee.The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware granted a charging lien to preserve Ajamie’s claim against the settlement proceeds. Ajamie then sought to enforce the lien. The court held that the fee-sharing agreement between Pullara and Ajamie was unenforceable under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct because the clients had not consented to the specific terms of the fee-sharing arrangement. However, the court ruled that Ajamie was still entitled to reasonable compensation under the principle of quantum meruit.The court calculated Ajamie’s lodestar at $13,178,616.78, based on market rates adjusted annually. Considering the Mahani factors, the court found that an upward adjustment was warranted due to the complexity and duration of the litigation, the significant results obtained, and the partially contingent nature of the fee arrangement. The court awarded Ajamie a total fee of $15,814,340.14, including a 20% increase for the contingency risk. After deducting amounts already paid, Ajamie was awarded $13,014,721.87 plus pre- and post-judgment interest. The court ordered the escrow agent to release this amount to Ajamie. View "Cellular Telephone Company Litigation cases" on Justia Law

Niv Goomai and Bar Hajbi purchased a property in Cincinnati and contracted with H&E Enterprise, L.L.C., Ohad Investment Group, and Avi Ohad for renovations. The renovations were not completed, leading Goomai to sell the property. Goomai then sued the defendants for breach of contract, violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and fraudulent misrepresentation, seeking actual damages but not injunctive relief.A jury trial was held before a magistrate, where the jury found that H&E had breached its contract and awarded Goomai $30,604.09 in damages. The jury also found that H&E and Ohad had engaged in deceptive trade practices but awarded $0 in damages for this violation. The jury ruled in favor of the defendants on the fraudulent misrepresentation claim. Goomai subsequently filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, which the magistrate denied, reasoning that Goomai did not qualify as a prevailing party under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act since they did not obtain any relief on the merits of their claim. The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision, and Goomai appealed.The First District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that a prevailing party under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act is one who obtains a judgment in their favor, regardless of whether they received a remedy. The court remanded the case to the trial court to determine the amount of attorney’s fees to which Goomai was entitled.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and concluded that to be a prevailing party under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, a plaintiff must obtain actual damages or injunctive relief. Since Goomai did not receive any monetary damages or injunctive relief, they were not considered prevailing parties. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the judgment of the First District Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s judgment denying attorney’s fees. View "Goomai v. H&E Enterprise, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Garret Hirchak, Manufacturing Solutions, Inc., and Sunrise Development LLC (plaintiffs) appealed a trial court's order dissociating Garret from Hirchak Brothers LLC and Hirchak Group LLC (defendants) and requiring the LLCs to pay over $900,000 in equity interest, unpaid compensation, and reimbursements. Plaintiffs argued that the trial court erred in not recognizing oppression by the majority members of the LLCs, treating a $300,000 down payment made by Garret as gratuitous, declining to order reimbursements for certain services and cash advances, and refusing to assess prejudgment interest on any of the reimbursements. Defendants cross-appealed, arguing that the court erred in awarding compensation to Garret after he breached his fiduciary duties.The Superior Court, Lamoille Unit, Civil Division, found that Garret had breached his fiduciary duties by failing to make explicit agreements on service rates and withholding financial records. The court ordered Garret's dissociation from the LLCs and required the LLCs to pay Garret $375,000 for his equity interest, $215,430 for cash advances made before March 2020, and $213,591.84 for unpaid compensation from October 2019 to January 2021. The court also ordered reimbursement of $71,537.64 and $50,214.57 for unpaid invoices from MSI and Sunrise, respectively, before March 2020. The court denied prejudgment interest on any reimbursements and rejected Garret's claim for the $300,000 down payment.The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, agreeing that Garret was not entitled to reimbursement for the $300,000 down payment or for cash advances and invoices after March 2020 due to his breach of fiduciary duties. The court also upheld the denial of prejudgment interest, finding it was within the trial court's discretion. However, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's award of compensation to Garret after March 2020, concluding that his breach of fiduciary duties forfeited his right to compensation during that period. The case was remanded for a recalculation of the compensation due to Garret. View "Hirchak v. Hirchak" on Justia Law

Hurricane Katrina destroyed Paul and Sylvia Minor’s home in 2005. The Minors had a homeowner’s insurance policy with United Services Automobile Association (USAA) that covered wind damage but excluded storm surge or flood damage. USAA issued payments for wind damage but not for storm surge or flood damage, leading to a dispute. The Minors claimed a total loss due to wind and demanded policy limits. In 2013, a jury awarded the Minors $1,547,293.37 in compensatory damages.The Minor Estate appealed a pretrial order granting partial summary judgment to USAA on the Minors’ bad faith claim. The Mississippi Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding USAA’s denial and delay of payment. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the bad faith claim. On remand, a jury awarded the Minors $10,000,000 in punitive damages and $457,858.89 in extra-contractual damages (attorneys’ fees). USAA appealed, and the Minor Estate cross-appealed the denial of its post-trial motion for additional attorneys’ fees.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and found no reversible error, affirming the jury’s award of $10,457,858.89 in damages. The court also reversed and rendered attorneys’ fees on behalf of the Estate in the amount of $4,500,000, plus post-judgment interest. The court held that the trial judge did not err in submitting the issue of punitive damages to the jury and that the $10 million punitive damages award was not unconstitutionally disproportionate. The court also found no error in the jury’s award of extra-contractual damages and no errors warranting a new trial. View "United Services Automobile Association v. Estate of Minor" on Justia Law

Nolan D. Palmer appealed a circuit court order enforcing sureties' liability related to a fee dispute among attorneys Barry Wade Gilmer, Seth Little, and Chuck McRae. McRae had initially sued Barry in Hinds County Chancery Court, and Barry subsequently filed a complaint in Madison County Circuit Court against Little, McRae, and McRae's attorneys, Michele Biegel and Bettie Ruth Johnson. The Madison County Circuit Court transferred the entire suit to Hinds County Chancery Court, but the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed this transfer for the claims against Biegel and Johnson, remanding the case back to Madison County Circuit Court. On remand, the circuit court dismissed Barry's complaint against Biegel and Johnson as frivolous and ordered Barry to pay their costs.Barry appealed and filed an appeal bond with supersedeas, signed by Barry, Matthew Gilmer, and Palmer. The bond was not signed by the circuit clerk. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's orders, and Biegel and Johnson moved to enforce the sureties' liability, claiming Barry had not satisfied the judgments. The circuit court found the bond enforceable as a contract, holding Barry and Palmer liable.Palmer appealed, arguing he was denied due process, the bond was invalid, and the circuit court erred in enforcing the bond as a contract. The Mississippi Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and found that Palmer waived his arguments by failing to appear or defend the motion in the circuit court. The court held that Palmer was provided due process as required under Rule 8(d) and affirmed the circuit court's order enforcing sureties' liability. View "Palmer v. McRae" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs BSI Group LLC and International Business Solutions Group, LLC, financial service companies, contracted with EZBanc Corp for financial services. EZBanc collaborated with Solid Financial Technologies, Inc. and Evolve Bank & Trust to provide these services. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants mishandled funds, withdrawing nearly $9 million from their accounts and failing to process approximately $300,000 in third-party payments. Defendants sought to compel arbitration, arguing that although EZBanc’s contracts with Plaintiffs lacked an arbitration clause, the contracts referred to other terms that included such a clause.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas denied Defendants' motions to compel arbitration. The court found that the language in the contracts was too vague to incorporate the Evolve Agreement by reference and that there was a factual dispute regarding whether the terms of the Evolve Agreement were known or easily available to Plaintiffs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court erred in its interpretation of the contract and its denial of the motion to compel arbitration. The appellate court found that there were material disputes of fact regarding whether the Evolve Agreement was effectively communicated to Plaintiffs, which necessitated a trial. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for trial to determine if Plaintiffs agreed to be bound by the terms in the Evolve Agreement through the “pop-up” or other aspects of EZBanc’s website. View "BSI Group LLC v. Solid Financial Technologies Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves an ex-wife, Stephanie P. Shilling, attempting to enforce an agreement with her ex-husband, Ebon T. Shilling, regarding the sale of her interest in a property acquired during their marriage. The ex-husband offered to purchase the ex-wife's interest via email, and she accepted the offer. However, the Family Court found that the email exchanges did not result in an enforceable contract because the parties did not adequately manifest their intent to be bound and the exchanges did not contain all material contractual terms.The Family Court of the State of Delaware previously reviewed the case. The court found that there was no enforceable contract between the parties because the email exchanges lacked a meeting of the minds and did not include all material terms. Additionally, the court concluded that signing a formal written agreement was a condition precedent to the contract, and even if there was a contract, the ex-wife acquiesced in the ex-husband's repudiation by continuing to negotiate.The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reviewed the case and disagreed with the Family Court's findings. The Supreme Court found that the email exchanges did form an enforceable contract as they contained a clear offer and acceptance, and the parties intended to be bound by the terms discussed in the emails. The court also determined that the signing of a formal written agreement was not a condition precedent to the contract. Furthermore, the Supreme Court found that the ex-wife did not acquiesce in the ex-husband's repudiation. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Family Court's judgment and remanded the matter for further proceedings to determine appropriate relief in light of the enforceable contract. View "Shilling v. Shilling" on Justia Law

In 2015, Zongwei Shen, owner of a massage spa, purchased a commercial insurance policy from Continental Casualty Company, which included an exclusion for abuse or molestation. In 2019, Toiah Gordon, Morganne Mersadie Root, and Karina Carrero sued Shen and his wife, alleging Shen sexually assaulted them during massage sessions. After Continental declined to provide a defense, Shen and Xin stipulated to liability, resulting in a $6.8 million judgment against them. Shen and Xin assigned their rights against Continental to the plaintiffs in exchange for a covenant not to execute the judgment. The plaintiffs then sued Continental for breach of contract and related claims.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Continental's motion for summary judgment, finding that the abuse or molestation exclusion in the insurance policy applied. The court concluded that Shen had care and control of Gordon during the massage, thus the exclusion applied to her injury. The court also found that the claims against Xin for negligent training fell within the exclusion, as negligent training is a form of negligent hiring, retention, or supervision.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that the abuse or molestation exclusion applied to Shen's actions because Gordon was under Shen's care and control during the massage. The court also held that the exclusion applied to the claims against Xin, as negligent training is encompassed within negligent employment and supervision. Consequently, Continental had no duty to defend Shen and Xin, and the summary judgment in favor of Continental was affirmed. View "Gordon v. Continental Casualty Co." on Justia Law

Windy Cove, Inc., HB Fuels, Inc., and Staffing and Management Group, Inc. (collectively “Windy Cove”) are gasoline dealers who own Mobil-branded stations in southern California. In 2012, they entered into a 15-year exclusive fuel supply agreement with Circle K Stores Inc. as required by the agreement under which they purchased their gas stations from ExxonMobil. Windy Cove alleged that Circle K did not set gasoline prices in good faith under this exclusive distributorship contract.The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of Circle K. The court found that the prices charged by Circle K were within the range of those charged by its competitors, including at least one refiner, and thus were set in good faith under California Commercial Code § 2305(2). Windy Cove failed to provide evidence that Circle K's prices were discriminatory or commercially unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment, holding that Circle K’s prices were presumptively set in good faith because the contract had a “price in effect” term. The court noted that the safe harbor provision under Uniform Commercial Code § 2-305, which is codified as California Commercial Code § 2305(2), presumes good faith if the prices are within the range of those charged by competitors. The court found that Circle K’s prices were lower than at least one refiner, thus falling within the range of prices charged by competitors. Windy Cove’s arguments regarding Circle K’s use of a non-industry-standard pricing formula and higher prices compared to other wholesalers did not rebut the presumption of good faith. The court concluded that summary judgment was appropriate and affirmed the district court’s decision. View "WINDY COVE, INC. V. CIRCLE K STORES INC." on Justia Law