Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his claims against Staples for breach of contract and for violations of New York General Business Law (N.Y. G.B.L.) Sections 349 and 350 for failure to state a claim. Sections 349 and 350 prohibit deception of consumers and false advertising. Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the district court erred in finding that the language of the Protection Plan Brochure (the Contract) that plaintiff purchased for his computer was unambiguous. The court concluded that plaintiff has adequately alleged both a materially misleading practice and an actual injury under N.Y. GBL Sections 349 and 350; with respect to the breach of contract claim, the district court erred in finding the Contract to be unambiguous, in requiring plaintiff to allege a “material” breach, and in finding that plaintiff had failed to adequately allege damages; construing the contract’s ambiguities in plaintiff’s favor, he has alleged Staples’s failure to perform in the first year of the contract and damages in the amount of his restitution interest; and should plaintiff seek damages beyond his restitution interest, he should amend his complaint. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded with instructions. View "Orlander v. Staples, Inc." on Justia Law

Vittorio and Lydia Gentile were policyholders under a Massachusetts automobile insurance policy issued by Commerce Insurance Company. Their grandson, Vittorio Gentile, Jr. (Junior), an “excluded operator” under the policy, was operating one of the Gentiles’ vehicles covered by the policy when he caused an accident that injured Douglas and Joseph Homsis. Commerce filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment that the Gentiles’ violation of the operator exclusion form relieved it of the duty to pay the Homsises under the optional bodily injury provisions of the insurance contract. A superior court judge concluded that Commerce was relieved of its duty to pay the optional coverage for the Homsis’ injures because the Gentiles had violated their duty of “continuing representation” as to whether Junior was, in fact, operating their vehicles. The Appeals Court affirmed both on that basis and on the basis that the Gentiles had breached the insurance contract. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed on the ground that, by allowing Junior to operate their vehicle, the Gentiles committed a breach of a material term of the insurance contract. View "Commerce Ins. Co., Inc. v. Gentile" on Justia Law

Defendants Charles and Stella Ohaeri leased space for a thrift store in a shopping center owned by plaintiff AP-Colton LLC. The thrift store was not a success, and the Ohaeris stopped paying rent. According to the Ohaeris, AP-Colton had fraudulently induced them to enter into the lease by stating that a church was going to move into the space next to theirs, but a competing store moved in instead. AP-Colton originally filed this case as a limited civil action, in which damages were limited to $25,000. The Ohaeris filed a cross-complaint seeking more than $25,000, but they did not pay the $140 fee required to reclassify the case as an unlimited civil action. Thereafter, AP-Colton filed an amended complaint seeking more than $25,000, because the Ohaeris should already have paid the reclassification fee, so AP-Colton did not pay it. After a bench trial, the trial court rejected the Ohaeris' fraud claims and awarded AP-Colton $126,437.25. The Ohaeris argued on appeal of that judgment that among other things, the case remained a limited civil action, and thus, the trial court erred by awarding damages of more than $25,000. The Court of Appeal agreed that the case should have remained a limited civil action. The Ohaeris, however, took the position below that the case had become an unlimited civil action, and the trial court accepted this position by awarding AP-Colton damages in excess of $25,000. The Court of Appeal held that as a result, the Ohaeris were judicially estopped to deny that the case was an unlimited civil action. Accordingly, on condition that it pays the $140 reclassification fee, AP-Colton can recover the full award. View "AP-Colton v. Ohaeri" on Justia Law

Starting in 2007, A&C Soaring Eagle, Inc. (A&C) purchased chemicals and fertilizer on account from Fitterer Sales Montana, Inc. (Fitterer). In 2009, Fitterer filed suit alleging that A&C and Clint Mullin, Jr. (Clint), A&C’s president and sole shareholder, personally owed Fitterer $98,184 and that it was owed interest on the amount due. After a bench trial in 2014, the district court found that A&C and Clint personally breached a contract with Fitterer for the sale of goods. The court ordered A&C and Clint to pay Fitterer $114,398, which included unpaid principal and interest calculated at a rate of ten percent per year from June 11, 2007 to November 30, 2014. The court also ordered A&C and Clint to pay $526 per month in prejudgment interest. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) a valid, binding contract existed between A&C and Fitterer for the sale of goods; (2) Fitterer was entitled to prejudgment interest on the amount due under the contract; and (3) as conceded on appeal by Fitterer, Clint should be dismissed as a defendant in this case. View "Fitterer v. Mullin" on Justia Law

This contract dispute was a portion of ongoing litigation initiated by the governing Boards of ten Cleveland community schools (“the schools”). Defendants were two private for-profit companies and ten subsidiary companies that operated and managed the schools (collectively, “White Hat”) pursuant to contracts with each school. The State Board of Education was also named in the complaint. The governing authorities of the schools filed suit challenging the operation of a buy-back provision of the contracts stating that the schools could retain personal property owned and used by White Hat in the schools’ daily operations after termination of the contracts only by paying certain payments to the management companies. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of White Hat. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals to the extent that it held that the buy-back provision of the contracts was enforceable and that the schools were obligated under that provision to pay for the personal property purchased by White Hat as described in the contract. Remanded to the trial court for an inventory of the property at issue and its disposition according to the contracts. View "Hope Academy Broadway Campus v. White Hat Mgmt., LLC" on Justia Law

Joseph and Janice Boyle sued C&N Corporation. C&N held an insurance policy issued by Zurich American Insurance Company requiring that C&N provide notice to Zurich of any lawsuit brought against it. C&N did not notify Zurich about the lawsuit, but the Boyles’ counsel did. Zurich did not defend against the suit. Judgement by default was entered for the Boyles. The Boyles then sued Zurich, asserting the claims of C&N, which had assigned to the Boyles. A superior court judge ruled that Zurich breached its contractual duty to defend C&N. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) an insured’s failure to comply with a notice obligation in an insurance policy does not relieve the insurer of its duties under the policy unless the insurer demonstrates that it suffered prejudice as a result of the breach; and (2) the superior court judge did not err in determining that Zurich committed a breach of its contractual duty to defend C&N, as Zurich failed to show that it was prejudiced as a result of C&N’s failure to comply with the policy’s notice obligation in this case. View "Boyle v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs manufactured industrial ball bearings, and Defendant was Plaintiffs’ exclusive distributor for certain Nice Ball Bearings, Inc. products. Plaintiffs brought this action for Defendant’s failure to meet its contractual obligations under an agreement between the parties and for Defendant’s anticipatory breach of contract. The trial court ruled in favor of Defendant on Plaintiffs’ claims, finding that Plaintiffs had waived a contractual requirement that Defendant purchase a minimum dollar value of bearings from Plaintiffs each year. The Appellate Court reversed, concluding that, even if Plaintiffs had waived the minimum purchase requirement as to certain years of the contract, the trial court clearly erred in finding that the waiver continued into subsequent contract years. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the record contained sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that Plaintiffs waived the minimum purchase requirement on a continuing basis. Remanded. View "RBC Nice Bearings, Inc. v. SKF USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant Cy Tapia, a teenager living with his aunt and grandmother, was driving a vehicle which crashed, inflicting severe and eventually fatal injuries on his passenger, Cory Driscoll. Before his death Driscoll and his mother filed an action for damages. The parties established that the vehicle driven by Tapia was owned by his grandfather and that Tapia was entitled to $100,000 in liability coverage under an auto policy issued to Melissa McGuire (Tapia’s sister), which listed the vehicle as an insured vehicle and listed Tapia as the driver of the vehicle. The policy was issued by petitioner-defendant 21st Century Insurance Company. 21st Century offered to settle the action for the policy limits of the McGuire policy ($100,000). However, plaintiff1 also believed that Tapia might be covered under policies issued to his aunt and grandmother, each offering $25,000 in coverage and also issued by 21st Century. Plaintiff communicated an offer to settle for $150,000 to Tapia’s counsel; 21st Century contended that it never received this offer (although there was certainly evidence to the contrary). Inferrably having realized the seriousness of its position, 21st Century affirmatively offered the “full” $150,000 to settle the case against Tapia. Plaintiff did not accept this offer, but a month later plaintiff’s counsel served a statutory offer to compromise seeking $3,000,000 for Cory Driscoll and $1,150,000 for his mother Jenny Driscoll. Shortly before the expiration of this offer, 21st Century sent Tapia a letter warning him that it would not agree to be bound if Tapia personally elected to accept the offer. Nonetheless, Tapia agreed to the entry of a stipulated judgment in the amounts demanded by plaintiff. 21st Century paid $150,000 plus interest to the plaintiff. Tapia then assigned any rights he had against 21st Century to plaintiff. This assignment and agreement included plaintiff’s promise not to execute on the judgment against Tapia so long as he complied with his obligations, e.g., to testify to certain facts concerning the original litigation and 21st Century’s actions. This bad faith action followed. Petitioner's unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment, and petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to overturn the trial court's denial. Upon review, the Court of Appeal found that plaintiff’s efforts to pursue essentially a “bad faith” action as assignee of the insured was misguided. Accordingly, petitioner was entitled to summary judgment. View "21st Century Ins. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Rent-A-Roofer, Inc. (Appellant) settled a lawsuit filed by the National Research Corporation (NRC) without notifying its insurer, Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Company (the Insurer), of the lawsuit. Appellant later notified the Insurer of its involvement in litigation and made a demand under Appellant’s policy with the Insurer. The Insurer declined coverage on the grounds that Appellant breached the policy’s notice provision and the voluntary payments provision. Appellant subsequently brought this action against the Insurer, alleging breach of contract and bad faith. The district court granted summary judgment for the Insurer. The district court first concluded that for an insurer to deny coverage based on breach of a voluntary settlement condition, the insurer must show prejudice in connection with its claim. The court then ruled that, where Appellant failed to meet both the notice and voluntary payments provisions, prejudice had been established as a matter of law. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly found that the Insurer was not liable for settlement by NRC against Appellant and not liable for Appellant’s defense costs. View "Rent-A-Roofer v. Farm Bureau Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Brand developed Thermablaster, a vent-free heater, to be manufactured by a Chinese company, Reecon. Reecon suggested using Intertek testing to ensure the heaters met U.S. safety standards. Brand spoke with Intertek representatives and visited the company’s website to ensure that Intertek could test to American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards. Satisfied that Intertek’s China facility had the necessary expertise, Brand allowed Reecon to use Intertek for testing against the most recent applicable ANSI standard. The $22,000 testing cost was part of the per-unit price. Ace Hardware agreed to pay Brand $467,000 for 3,980 Thermablasters. Brand visited China to monitor production. Reecon gave Brand an Intertek document signed by its engineers, showing that the heaters had passed all relevant tests. Brand bought 5,500 heaters and delivered them to Ace. Ace began selling the heaters in 2011 but halted sales permanently after learning from a competitor that they did not meet ANSI standards. Ace obtained a default judgment of $611,060 against Brand. Brand sued Intertek. Intertek countersued, alleging trademark infringement because Brand had placed Intertek’s testing certification mark on boxes before receiving permission. Intertek bought Ace’s judgment against Brand for $250,000 and aggressively tried to collect before trial. The Third Circuit affirmed a verdict finding Intertek liable to Brand for negligent misrepresentation and awarding Brand $1,045,000 in compensatory and $5 million in punitive damages. View "Brand Mktg. Grp. LLC v. Intertek Testing Servs. NA" on Justia Law