Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Castro-Cortes was working for Astro, a subcontractor of JRJ, when he fell through a hole on the jRJ property. He sued JRJ for personal injury in Illinois state court. After being served in that suit, JRJ’s two members, Panfil and Michelon, filed a report with Nautilus under a general commercial liability policy. Nautilus refused to defend, citing three grounds: that the underlying lawsuit was against JRJ, but the named insureds were Panfil and Michelon; the “Contractor-Subcontracted Work Endorsement;” and the “Employee Exclusion.” The JRJ parties filed a federal suit for breach of contract. On summary judgment, the district court determined that Nautilus breached its duty to defend because there was at least the potential for coverage of the underlying lawsuit. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that it is a close case and that the bar to finding a duty to defend is low. The court construed the language of the exclusions in favor of JRJ, noting that the burden of proving that a claim falls within an exclusion rests on the insurer. View "Panfil v. Nautilus Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Keith Randall Sparkman filed a complaint against CONSOL Energy, Inc. (CONSOL) and CONSOL of Kentucky, Inc. (CKI), as well as certain individuals, for breach of contract and tortious interference with contract. The jury found in favor of Sparkman and awarded damages. CONSOL/CKI appealed, and Sparkman cross-appealed. The court of appeals disposed of the matter sua sponte based on a perceived lack of jurisdiction. Because the contracts at issue in this dispute were entered into by In-Depth Sanitary Service Group (Group), a sole proprietorship not named in the complaint, and because the judgment was in favor of Group, a “non-party,” the court of appeals reversed and remanded the cause to the circuit court for further proceedings and any “appropriate corrective action.” The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court’s judgment identified the correct party because the parties mutually consented to the amendment of the complaint to reflect Keith Randall Sparkman d/b/a In-Depth Sanitary Service Group; and (2) the naming of the parties in the notice of cross-appeal was sufficient to transfer jurisdiction to the court of appeals. View "Sparkman v. Consol Energy, Inc." on Justia Law

Siouxland, a group practice of obstetrician-gynecologists, terminated Hagen, its President and an equity owner, invoking the for-cause termination provision in Hagen’s 1993, Employment Agreement, after an incident during which Hagen yelled at Dr. Eastman (another Siouxland doctor) and hospital staff, accusing them of neglecting a patient, resulting in a stillbirth. Hagen also reported the incident to hospital administration and told the Siouxland partners that he was considering reporting to the Iowa state medical board. Hagen advised the patient to sue for malpractice. Hagen filed suit, alleging wrongful retaliatory discharge in violation of Iowa public policy. The other doctors testified about Hagen’s history of workplace conflicts and outbursts and about concern that his suspension by the hospital would hurt the reputation of the practice. A jury awarded Hagen $1,051,814 in compensatory damages. The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that Hagen failed to prove he was an at-will employee who may assert a tort claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The exclusive remedy of a medical professional practicing under Hagen’s Employment Agreement would be a breach of contract claim, which would permit inquiry into the professional conduct the district court found separately protected by the tort of wrongful termination in violation of public policy. View "Hagen v. Siouxland Obstetrics & Gynecology, PC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a real estate developer, alleged that WMATA signed a contractually binding Term Sheet preliminarily selecting plaintiff to develop property above a Metrorail station and giving plaintiff the exclusive right to negotiate a final development agreement. Plaintiff filed suit raising claims related to its allegation that one of WMATA's Board Members, Jim Graham, abused his position and his seat on the Council of the District of Columbia to work behind the scenes with one of plaintiff’s rival bidders to derail WMATA's negotiations with plaintiff. The court concluded that plaintiff adequately stated both contract claims for breach of the exclusivity provision and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Further, plaintiff adequately stated its claim of tortious interference and conspiracy against plaintiff's rival bidder. The court reversed as to these claims. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claim for fraud against WMATA because it is barred by sovereign immunity. The court held that Graham failed to bear his burden to establish the scope of his official duties and to situate his conduct within its outer perimeter. Therefore, the court vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded for the district court to consider in the first instance which of Graham’s other actions fell beyond the outer perimeter of his official duties and whether those actions that did fall beyond the outer perimeter, taken together, state claims against Graham for tortious interference and civil conspiracy. The court vacated the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff's claims against Graham and remanded for further consideration. View "Banneker Ventures, LLC v. Graham" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from alleged acts of pre-leasing housing discrimination that resulted in alleged emotional distress. At the relevant time, the defendants in the underlying case (“Insureds”) were covered under an umbrella insurance policy issued by Insurer. After Insureds settled the underlying case, Insureds sued Insurer for breach of contract for failing to defend Insureds pursuant to the umbrella policy. A federal trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Insurer on its duty to defend and indemnify Insureds under the umbrella policy. The federal court of appeals reversed. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the umbrella policy’s intentional-acts exclusion - through application of the inferred-intent doctrine - obviated Insurer’s duty to defend in this case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the umbrella policy at issue here arguably provides coverage for emotional-distress damages through its coverage for humiliation; and (2) emotional-distress damages are not inherent in a claim for discrimination, and therefore, the inferred-intent doctrine was inapplicable. View "Granger v. Auto-Owners Ins." on Justia Law

Bible defaulted on a loan under the Federal Family Education Loan Program, but entered into a rehabilitation agreement. She remains current on her reduced payments, but a guaranty agency assessed $4,500 in collection costs. Bible’s loan terms were governed by a Stafford Loan Master Promissory Note (MPN), approved by the Department of Education, incorporating the Higher Education Act, and providing for “reasonable collection fees and costs” in default, as defined by regulations promulgated under the Act. Bible sued, alleging breach of contract and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. 1961, arguing that federal regulations prohibit assessment of collection costs and that the guaranty agency committed mail fraud and wire fraud in assessing collection costs despite its representations that her “current collection cost balance” and “current other charges” were zero. The court dismissed, finding both claims “preempted” by the Higher Education Act, which permits collection costs and that Bible had not shown “a scheme to defraud; commission of an act with intent to defraud; or the use of mails or interstate wires in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme.” The Seventh Circuit reversed. The contract claim does not conflict with federal law. The Secretary of Education interprets the regulations to provide that a guaranty agency may not impose collection costs on a borrower who is in default for the first time and has complied with an alternative repayment agreement. Bible’s RICO claim is not preempted. View "Bible v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc." on Justia Law

Toy Box, an LLC organized to operate storage facility sales businesses, distributed an Offering Circular that stated that investors’ funds would be held in escrow and not released unless a minimum of $500,000 in capital was deposited in 2008. If Toy Box did not raise minimum capital by the deadline, the offering would terminate and Toy Box would return investors' funds . Doud executed a subscription agreement and invested $100,000. In June 2008, Toy Box amended its offering, lowering the minimum capital requirement to $350,000. Doud agreed to the amendment. By July 11, 2008, Toy Box had raised $200,000, including Doud’s investment; a manager authorized release of the escrow funds. Days later, Toy Box represented to investors that it had "achieved its threshold funding level and exited escrow with $425,000 in place." In 2011, Toy Box suffered substantial financial losses. Doud lost his investment and sued, alleging breach of the investment agreement and violation of the Securities Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78j(b)); SEC Rules 10b-5 and 10b-9; and the Iowa Uniform Securities Act. The Eighth Circuit affirmed that Toy Box had breached its agreement by releasing escrow funds before reaching the minimum threshold of funding; that its conduct violated both SEC Rules and the Uniform Securities Act; that Doud had established scienter; and rejecting a claim of good faith. View "Doud v. Toy Box Dev. Co." on Justia Law

Community College of Baltimore County (CCBC) entered into an agreement with Patient First Corporation, a medical provider, under which student medical technicians gained experience doing blood draws at Patient First. In the agreement, CCBC agreed to indemnify Patient First for any liability that Patient First might occur, including attorneys’ fees, arising from a negligent act or omission of a student. As a result of an incident involving a failed blood draw by a student, Patient First was sued. The parties in the suit reached a settlement agreement. CCBC challenged its obligation to indemnify Patient First for the settlement payment and attorneys’ fees, asserting that the liability arose from the Patient First’s own negligence. The circuit court ruled that Patient First was entitled to indemnification. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) the circuit court was not clearly erroneous in concluding that Patient First bore its burden of proving its entitlement to indemnification and that CCBC did not bear its burden of proving, as an affirmative defense, that Patient First was itself negligent and that the liability arose from that negligence; and (2) there was insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the requested attorneys’ fee award was reasonable. Remanded. View "Bd. of Trs., Cmty. Coll. of Baltimore County v. Patient First Corp." on Justia Law

Konig’s SRI Employment Agreement, stated: I agree ….To promptly disclose… all discoveries, improvements, and inventions, including software … during … my employment, and … to effect transfer of ownership … to SRI . . . . I understand that termination of this employment shall not release me from my obligations. While employed by SRI, Konig started generating documents relating to a personalized information services idea called “Personal Web” and formed a company, Utopy. Konig left SRI and filed a provisional patent application in 1999; the 040 patent issued in 2005. In 2001, Konig asked an SRI scientist to test the Utopy products. The 040 patent was eventually assigned to PUM. Konig filed another patent application in 2008. PUM was the assignee; the 276 patent issued in 2010. In 2009, PUM sued Google, asserting infringement. PUM provided interrogatory responses that asserted that the conception of the inventions was while Konig was still at SRI. Google had acquired “any rights” that SRI had and counterclaimed breach of contract. The court stated that no reasonable juror could have found that the injury was “inherently unknowable,” applied the three-year limitations period for contracts claims, and granted PUM judgment on the counterclaim. The court also entered judgment of invalidity and noninfringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed, noting that the claim construction had no effect on the outcome and declining to issue an advisory opinion. View "Personalized User Model, LLP v. Google, Inc." on Justia Law

Electrical Wholesale Supply Co. (EWS) filed this action seeking payment for electrical materials it supplied to a commercial building remodel. EWS sued, among other defendants, Alane Fraser, the owner of the commercial property, and M.J. Bishop Concrete & Construction, Inc. (Bishop Construction), the general contractor, for foreclosure of a construction lien, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and third party beneficiary. The circuit court denied EWS’s claims. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding that the circuit court (1) applied the wrong statute to the lien notice issue and erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Fraser on the lien claim; but (2) did not err in concluding that EWS did not prove its unjust enrichment claim against Fraser and Bishop Construction. View "Elec. Wholesale Supply Co., Inc. v. Fraser" on Justia Law