Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Copia Communications, LLC, a Massachusetts company, brought this action in federal district court in Massachusetts against Seawind Key Investments, Limited, a Jamaican resort operator, and Seawind’s alleged alter-ego, AMResorts, LP, a Pennsylvania limited partnership, alleging breach of contract. The subject contract was proposed and executed in Jamaica, performance on the contract occurred almost exclusively in Jamaica, and the contract was governed by the laws of Jamaica. Both defendants, neither of which operated any business or had any corporate presence in Massachusetts, moved to dismiss, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens. The district court dismissed the case without prejudice, finding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendants was barred by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. View "Copia Commc’ns, LLC v. AMResorts, LP" on Justia Law

Keller Transport, Inc. leased a tanker truck from Wagner Enterprises, LLC to transport gasoline. The truck’s trailer overturned and spilled 6,380 gallons of gasoline, which flooded several homeowners’ properties. Keller and Wagner were both insured under a commercial transportation policy. Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company insured both Keller and Wagner under an excess liability policy. Homeowners initiated suit against Keller and Wagner. Westchester undertook defense of the suit on behalf of Kohler and Wagner pursuant to a reservation of rights and defended Keller and Wagner until the limit of its excess coverage had allegedly been exhausted. Westchester sought a declaration that the limit under its excess policy was $4 million in total and that the limit had been exhausted. As relevant to this appeal, the district court granted summary judgment against Westchester. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) did not err by determining that Westchester’s policy was ambiguous and that it provided an additional $4 million in coverage under the “general aggregate” limit; but (2) erred by holding that Westchester breached its duty to defend the insureds under its policy. View "Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Keller Transport, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that HRFC violated the Maryland Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions (CLEC), Md. Code Ann., Com. Law 12-1001 et seq., breached a retail installment sales contract, and violated the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (MCDCA), Md. Code. Ann., Com. Law 14-201 et seq. The district court granted summary judgment to HRFC. The court held that HRFC’s mere failure to disclose an interest rate below CLEC’s statutory maximum is not a distinct violation of section 12-1003(a) for which liability may be imposed; HRFC complied with section 12-1020’s notice requirement and HRFC did not fail to properly cure its error; and the court rejected plaintiff's contention that because the contract incorporates CLEC’s provisions, HRFC is liable for breach of contract for any deviation from CLEC, “regardless of whether HRFC properly cured the failure to comply” with the statute. The court held, however, that a jury could find that HRFC's conduct, at least in the aggregate, could reasonably be expected to abuse or harass plaintiff. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's order in regard to the MCDCA claim. The court affirmed as to the CLEC and breach of contract claims. View "Askew v. HRFC, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, current and former Chicago taxi drivers, paid a “shift fee,” a lease payment that allows the driver to operate one of the defendants’ taxis and earn income. Weekly fees range from $500 to $800 or more. Drivers also pay operating expenses, including fuel, airport taxes, upkeep, and sometimes insurance payments. The drivers do not earn traditional wages or overtime pay. Their only source of income is what they make in fares and tips from passengers. The drivers contend that they often receive less than minimum wage and for some shifts, pay more for fees and expenses than they receive from fares and tips. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of their class action suit under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820 ILCS 115 and asserting unjust enrichment. The Act defines “wages” as compensation owed by the employer pursuant to an employment agreement between the parties. Even if the drivers were employees under an employment agreement, that agreement did not obligate defendants to compensate the drivers. The Act provides no substantive relief beyond what the underlying employment contract requires. View "Enger v. Chicago Carriage Cab Corp." on Justia Law

Ray Fischer transferred his business assets to CTMI, LLC pursuant to a written asset-purchase agreement. CTMI later filed a second amended petition alleging that portions of the asset-purchase agreement were unenforceable “agreements to agree.” The trial court entered judgment in favor of Fischer. The court of appeals reversed and rendered judgment that the disputed portion of CTMI’s payment obligations was an unenforceable agreement to agree. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the payment provision at issue was enforceable because its material terms were sufficiently definite to enable a court to determine CTMI’s obligation and provide a remedy for its breach. View "Fischer v. CTMI, LLC" on Justia Law

A fire severely damaged a restaurant that was owned by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs made a claim to Defendant, the insurer of the restaurant, but Defendant denied the majority of the claim. Plaintiffs filed a breach-of-contract action against Defendant to recover under the insurance policy. A jury returned a verdict for Plaintiffs in the amount of $236,902. Defendant paid this amount plus interest and costs. Three months after judgment was entered, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendant for “bad faith,” alleging that Defendant lacked an objectively reasonable basis for denying the claim. The district court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the bad-faith action was barred by claim preclusion. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the court of appeals and affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendant, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the final judgment in the breach-of-contract suit barred the later tort action for bad faith. View "Villarreal v. United Fire & Cas. Co." on Justia Law

GA entered into a blanket purchase agreement (BPA 218), with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in June 2011, to furnish trained service dogs for disabled veterans. A year later, the contracting officer sent an email questioning GA's performance. On August 31, 2012, the officer sent notice terminating BPA 218 for default and suspending open orders, informing GA that it had the right to appeal under the disputes clause of the contract. On December 21, 2012, GA sent a letter to the VA’s Rehabilitation Research & Development Service, arguing that it had fulfilled its duties and that the default termination should be converted to a termination for the convenience of the government. On February 28, 2013, GA sent the contracting officer a “formal demand.” On March 21, the officer sent a letter stating that she had received the claim but needed supporting documentation. GA began compiling documentation, but on May 3, the officer sent another letter, stating that she would not reconsider her decision, but that GA could appeal under 41 U.S.C. 7104(b). On January 7, 2014, GA filed suit. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed, finding the claim time-barred because, while the February 2013 letter qualified as a request for reconsideration, the officer did not reconsider, so the statute of limitations never tolled. The Federal Circuit reversed. The 12-month statutory appeal period did not begin to run until the officer rejected the request for reconsideration on May 3. View "Guardian Angels Med. Serv. Dogs, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Reddick was employed as an FDIC “Investigation Specialist” by an initial two-year term appointment, set to expire in September 2012. In April 2012, the FDIC offered him an extension of the initial term for an additional two years. The offer stated that the “extended employment” would be “effective [September], 2012” and that the “extended appointment is subject to the conditions of employment [included in the initial appointment offer] and subject to your continued successful performance.” Reddick accepted the offer days after receipt. The FDIC revoked the extension offer in August 2012. Reddick filed a grievance on the theory that the revocation of the offer was an adverse action under 5 U.S.C. 7512 and that he was entitled to procedural protections that the FDIC did not provide him. The matter was referred to arbitration under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. The arbitrator found the extension offer to be conditioned on Reddick’s “satisfactory work performance” and that the revocation was supported by sufficient justification. The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal. The extension offer was still revocable by the FDIC even after acceptance by Reddick; it never matured into an effective extension, so Reddick was not “removed.” View "Reddick v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp." on Justia Law

Cherri Porter’s beachfront vacation home was completely destroyed during Hurricane Katrina. Porter claimed the destruction was the result of a barge, owned by Grand Casino of Mississippi, Inc.–Biloxi, breaking free from its moorings and alliding with her home. Because Porter’s all-risk insurance policy excluded from coverage damage caused by water or windstorm, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company denied Porter’s claim. Porter filed suit against the insurance agent who maintained the policy, Max Mullins, against State Farm, and against Grand Casino. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of each defendant, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Porter filed a petition for writ of certiorari claiming genuine issues of fact existed as to each defendant, and the Mississippi Supreme Court granted her petition. Because Porter’s all-risk insurance policy unambiguously excluded from coverage loss that would not have occurred absent water damage, no genuine issue of material fact existed as to Porter’s bad-faith denial of coverage claim against State Farm. Additionally, Porter failed to produce sufficient evidence showing a genuine issue of fact as to whether Grand Casino breached its duty to take reasonable measures to prevent foreseeable injury. The Court therefore affirmed the decisions of the trial court and of the Court of Appeals as to all issues. View "Porter v. Grand Casino of Mississippi, Inc.- Biloxi" on Justia Law

Virginia Fuel Corporation and Lambert Coal Company entered into an agreement by which Virginia Fuel agreed to acquire certain assets owned by Lambert. James C. Justice Companies, Inc. executed a guaranty guaranteeing Lambert’s obligations under the agreement. After Virginia Fuel stopped making payments under the agreement, Lambert filed suit against Virginia Fuel and Justice Companies, alleging breach of the agreement and breach of the guaranty. Virginia Fuel and Justice Companies counterclaimed for breach of contract. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Lambert and dismissed Defendant’s affirmative defense of recoupment as well as Defendants’ counterclaim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment to Lambert on its complaint, sustaining Lambert’s demurrer to Defendants’ counterclaim, and dismissing Defendants’ defense of recoupment. View "Virginia Fuel Corp. v. Lambert Coal Co." on Justia Law