Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Orthopedic Specialists and various medical service providers challenged reimbursements made by Allstate Insurance Company under personal injury protection no-fault insurance policies issued to Allstate’s insureds, arguing that Allstate’s policy was ambiguous as to whether Allstate had elected to reimburse the Providers in accordance with the Medicare fee schedules provided for in Fla. Stat. 627.736(5)(a)2. The Fourth District held that the policy language was not legally sufficient to authorize Allstate to apply the Medicare fee schedules. The Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Fourth District and approved the decision of the First District in Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance v. Stand-Up MRI of Tallahassee, P.A., holding that Allstate’s insurance policy provides legally sufficient notice of Allstate’s election to use the permissive Medicare fee schedules identified in section 627.736(5)(a)2 to limit reimbursements. View "Allstate Insurance Co. v. Orthopedic Specialists" on Justia Law

Natalie Heslop overdosed on prescription drugs. The next day, Natalie rolled her truck down an embankment. Natalie informed the responding police officer, medical personnel, her family, and an insurance adjuster that the accident had been a suicide attempt. Natalie’s insurance policy provided that it would exclude coverage to any injured person “if the person’s conduct contributed to his injury…by intentionally causing injury to himself.” Natalie and her husband, Brandon Heslop, attempted to collect from Bear River Mutual Insurance Company under both a personal injury protection claim for Natalie’s personal injuries and a property damage claim for damage to the truck. Bear River denied the claims based on Natalie's admission that she intended to drive down the embankment. The Heslops subsequently filed a complaint against Bear River. The district court granted summary judgment to Bear River as to both the personal injury claim and the property damage claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the Heslops’ claims. View "Heslop v. Bear River Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In 2012, Nappa Construction Management, LLC (Nappa) and Caroline and Vincent Flynn (the Flynns) entered into a contract for a commercial construction project. Service Insurance Company, Inc. (Service Insurance) furnished a performance bond on the contract. In 2013, the Flynns directed Nappa to stop work on the project. Nappa subsequently submitted an application for payment, which the Flynns declined to pay. Nappa then terminated the contract due to nonpayment. The Flynns filed an action alleging that Nappa had wrongfully terminated the contract. Nappa filed a demand for arbitration in accordance with an arbitration provision in the contract and also named Service Insurance as a party to the arbitration. The arbitrator found that Nappa was not justified in terminating the contract but concluded that, under the termination-for-convenience clause in the contract, neither Nappa nor the Flynns were in breach of the contract. The arbitrator awarded Nappa $37,980. The superior court granted Nappa’s petition to confirm the arbitration award, concluding that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers in holding that the contract was terminated for convenience. The Supreme Court vacated the superior court’s judgment, holding that the arbitrator exceeded his authority in interpreting the contract. View "Nappa Construction Management, LLC v. Flynn" on Justia Law

Cardi Corporation contracted with the State to construct a portion of a highway construction project dealing with Interstate 195 in Rhode Island (I-Way Project). Cardi subcontracted with High Steel to supply steel for the project. Asserting that it was never paid for 182,873 pounds of temporary steel bracing, High Steel brought suit against Cardi. In response, Cardi filed a third-party action for breach of contract against the State. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of the State on the third-party suit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the contract was clear and unambiguous and did not require payment for temporary bracing steel. View "High Steel Structures, Inc. v. Cardi Corp. v. State" on Justia Law

This suit arose from the actions of iStar’s Board of Directors in modifying performance-based executive compensation awards, which were granted in the form of stock. Petitioners filed suit against current and former members of iStar’s Board and senior management, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel. The circuit court dismissed all of Petitioners’ claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Petitioners’ claims were properly dismissed by the circuit court for failure to overcome the business judgment rule presumption; and (2) furthermore, Petitioners’ claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel are derivative claims that are subject to the business judgment rule. View "Oliveira v. Sugarman" on Justia Law

Jeremy and Jessica Litster appealed a district court dismissal on summary judgment. The case concerned the enforceability of three promissory notes, which were prepared and issued by Jeremy to Jason Lee , Scott McNab, and a non-party, Rick Lee. In February 2009, Jeremy learned of an "investment opportunity" that required a minimum buy-in of $500,000. Jeremy and Jason solicited close friends and family to "invest" by transferring money to them, which would later be transferred to Jeremy's relative, Marc Jenson. Ultimately, the "investment" failed, and Plaintiffs and other "investors" looked to Jeremy for repayment. Jeremy made payments on these promissory notes. However, in July 2011, Jeremy stopped making payments because he learned that the Idaho Department of Finance had been notified regarding his investment solicitation activity. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Litsters in 2014, alleging three counts of breach of contract for failure to pay the amounts due according to the promissory notes. The Litsters answered asserting, inter alia, the affirmative defense that the notes were issued under duress. Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment of the issues of breach of contract and duress. The district court granted Plaintiffs' motion. On the issue of duress, the district court found in Plaintiffs' favor under two different legal theories: (1) the Litsters failed to provide sufficient evidence of their claim for duress to create a genuine issue of material fact; and (2) the district court noted that the undisputed evidence demonstrated that Jeremy ratified the promissory notes by making payments thereon. It concluded that, in addition to the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the Litsters' "claim for duress fails because [Jeremy ] ratified the contracts by making payments on the [n]otes." The Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment, finding that the Litsters failed to contest the alternate grounds upon which the summary judgment was granted. View "Lee v. Litster" on Justia Law

In June 2002, defendant Ron Miller entered into an open account agreement with plaintiff Union Lumber Company for the purchase of building supply materials. In July 2010, plaintiff filed an action for breach of contract and unjust enrichment against Ron Miller and his spouse Linda Miller, seeking $17,865 as the unpaid balance on the account. The complaint alleged that defendants' son, Ean Miller, had purchased building materials from plaintiff, charging those materials to the Miller account with his father's authority. The complaint further alleged that the materials that Ean purchased were delivered to properties that defendants owned and were used to improve those properties and that, for several years, defendants had paid the charges that Ean had made on the account. The question this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether the trial court erred in denying defendants' motion under ORCP 71 B(1) to set aside a general judgment entered against them on grounds of excusable neglect and mistake. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling, concluding that the judgment was entered as a result of mistakes made by plaintiff and a court-appointed arbitrator with respect to the service of case-related documents on defendants. Because the Supreme Court concluded that defendants were not entitled to relief from the judgment on the grounds asserted, it reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial court's order denying defendants' motion to set aside the judgment. View "Union Lumber Co. v. Miller" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was (1) how Utah Code 30-3-5(1)(e) should be interpreted in correlation with Utah Code 75-2-804, and (2) the proper interpretation of “express terms” in section 75-2-804(2). Tyler Hertzske and Linda Snyder each claimed sole entitlement to the death benefits of a life insurance policy held by Edward Hertzske, deceased. The district court granted summary judgment to Tyler, concluding that Tyler was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In so holding, the judge concluded (1) where section 30-3-5(1)(e) was not considered or included in the divorce proceedings, it did not apply, and (2) the Policy did not contain “express terms” that would except it from revocation under section 75-2-804(2). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 75-2-804(2) creates a rebuttable presumption that a beneficiary designation in a life insurance policy is revoked upon divorce; (2) section 30-3-5(1)(e) does not apply in this instance, and, rather, section 75-2-804 governs; (3) a life insurance policy must contain “express terms” referring to divorce in order for the beneficiary designation of a former spouse to survive revocation by section 75-2-804(2); and (4) the Policy did not contain “express terms” that would except it from revocation under section 75-2-804(2). View "Snyder v. Hertzske" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action against Samsung, alleging that it made misrepresentations as to the performance of the Galaxy S4 phone. The district court denied Samsung's motion to compel arbitration based on an arbitration provision contained in a warranty brochure included in the Galaxy S4 box. Determining that its analysis is governed by California contract, rather than warranty, law, the court concluded plaintiff did not assent to any agreement in the brochure, nor did he sign or otherwise act in a manner that showed he accepted the arbitration agreement. The court concluded that Samsung failed to demonstrate the applicability of any exception to the general California rule that an offeree’s silence does not constitute consent. Therefore, in the absence of an applicable exception, California’s general rule for contract formation applies. The court also concluded that, under the circumstances of this case, Samsung's inclusion of a brochure in the Galaxy S4 box, and plaintiff's failure to opt out, does not make the arbitration provision enforceable against plaintiff. Finally, the court concluded that Samsung's argument that plaintiff agreed to arbitrate his claims by signing the Customer Agreement with Verizon Wireless is meritless. The court explained that Samsung is not a signatory to the Customer Agreement between Verizon Wireless and its customer. Furthermore, Samsung is not a third-party beneficiary to the Customer Agreement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Norcia v. Samsung Telecommunications" on Justia Law

Before 2013, the surviving spouse of a member of Chattanooga’s Fire and Police Pension Fund could receive benefits after the member died without incurring a proportional reduction in the member’s lifetime benefits. In 2012, the city removed this “default death benefit” for members who were not eligible to retire as of January 1, 2013. Dodd was not eligible to retire on that date and opted for a five-percent reduction in current, lifetime benefits so that his wife could receive an additional benefit upon his death. Dodd sued, asserting claims under the federal Contract Clause, Due Process Clause, and Takings Clause, and Tennessee’s Law of the Land Clause. Dodd also argued that the 2012 amendment was not validly enacted under local law. The district court granted the city summary judgment on all claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Because Dodd does not have a contract or property right to the default death benefit, his constitutional claims fail. Although Dodd’s interest in some future benefits vested after 10 years of service, but Dodd did not become entitled to the default death benefit when he hit 10 years. Dodd’s challenge to the validity of the amendment’s enactment is also without merit. View "Dodd v. City of Chattanooga" on Justia Law