Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

A “viatical” or “life settlement” permits an insured to sell his life insurance policy. Federal tax and some state laws have been amended to accommodate the practice. In 2006, an agent persuaded Close, age 74, to apply for a $5 million life insurance policy. As submitted to PHL, his application falsely stated Close’s net worth and income, and failed to disclose his conviction for receiving illegal kickbacks. Under the agent’s guidance, Close falsely stated his net worth to obtain a two-year, $300,225 premium financing loan from CFC, a PHL-approved funding source. The policy was pledged as collateral; Close personally guaranteed 25 percent of the loan, believing that the policy would be worth $1.3 million in two-years, when it became “incontestable” under Minn. Stat. 61A.03.1(c) and that he would be able to sell it for $500,000. PHL conducted minimal investigation and received premiums of $272,025; CFC received $14,200 in fees; and the agent and a CFC employee split substantial commissions. In 2009, BNC explained Close’s options for repayment: refinancing, selling, or relinquishing the policy to the lender. The secondary market had crashed. Close surrendered the policy. When Close died in 2011, investigation revealed the fraudulent misrepresentations, but rescission was foreclosed by the incontestability statute. PHL sought a declaratory judgment that the policy was void as contrary to public policy for lack of an insurable interest. The district court agreed. The Eighth Circuit reversed, stating that permitting insurers to resist paying based on evidence that an insured used premium financing and planned to sell, is “not a result the Supreme Court of Minnesota would find acceptable in exercising its ‘delicate and undefined power’ to declare a contract void. View "PHL Variable Ins. Co. v. Bank of Utah" on Justia Law

Indiana Restorative Dentistry, P.C. (“IRD”) insured its dentist’s office under a policy issued by ProAssurance Indemnity Company, Inc. (“ProAssurance”) and procured through the Laven Insurance Agency, Inc. (“Laven”). After a fire destroyed the entire IRD office, IRD discovered that the contents coverage of its insurance policy was inadequate to cover its loss. IRD sued ProAssurance and Laven in tort and contract. The trial court granted partial summary judgment for ProAssurance, concluding that Laven had no duty to advise based on a special relationship, that Laven had no contractual duty to procure insurance that would have fully covered the fire losses, and that ProAssurance was not vicariously liable for the alleged acts or omissions of Laven. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) genuine issues of material fact remained regarding the existence of a special relationship between IRD and Laven and, consequently, a duty to advise; and (2) Laven had no duty to procure full coverage because there was no evidence showing a “meeting of the minds” on an implied contract requiring Laven to procure a policy that would cover all losses to office contents. View "Ind. Restorative Dentistry, P.C. v. Laven Ins. Agency, Inc." on Justia Law

American Express sent Wise a credit card and “Agreement.” Wise accepted the offer by using the credit card. The Agreement provides that it is governed by the laws of Utah and provides that, upon default: “You agree to pay all reasonable costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred by us.” Wise defaulted on the account, and American Express retained a law firm, which filed suit in Ohio state court. Wise filed for bankruptcy, staying that lawsuit, then filed a putative class action lawsuit against the attorneys, seeking to represent consumers from whom they demanded attorney’s fees. Noting that Ohio law bars contracts that would require payment of attorney’s fees on the collection of consumer debt, Wise alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692,and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA), Ohio Rev. Code 1345.02, 1345.03. The district court applied Utah law and determined that: the case fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause; OCSPA did not apply; Utah law allowed for the collection of attorney’s fees: and there was no FDCPA violation. The Sixth Circuit reversed in part. The pleadings do not resolve which law would govern the attorney’s-fee question. On the state law claim, the court affirmed. View "Wise v. Zwicker & Assocs., PC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff obtained a $23 million judgment against a Corporation. Plaintiff sought to secure payment on that judgment by filing suit in federal district court against the Corporation’s president and its corporate parent, alleging that Defendants had looted the Corporation of more than $18 million in assets in order to render it judgment-proof. After Plaintiff learned that one of the Corporation’s corporate parents planned to merge with an Austrian subsidiary, the district court issued a temporary restraining order, later converted into a preliminary injunction, barring the merger. Defendants nevertheless effected the merger. The district court issued civil contempt sanctions on Defendants for violating the court’s preliminary injunction order. Plaintiff subsequently moved for default judgment based on Defendants’ assertion that they had no intention of complying with the contempt order. The district court entered judgment for Plaintiff and awarded $75 million to Plaintiff. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly exercised personal jurisdiction over Defendants; (2) Plaintiff’s complaint adequately stated valid causes of action for, inter alia, tortious interference with contractual relations and veil piercing; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in entering default judgment as a sanction for Defendants’ discovery violations; and (4) the district court did not err when it entered a damage award without an evidentiary hearing. View "AngioDynamics, Inc. v. Biolitec AG" on Justia Law

Bannum protested decisions of the Bureau of Prisons of the U.S. Department of Justice to award two contracts to other bidders, alleging a common defect in the terms of the solicitations and problems in the evaluation of competing bids. Bannum cited a requirement of compliance with Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, 42 U.S.C. 15601–15609 and the government’s failure to provide pricing information with respect to the requirement. In each case, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed Bannum’s suit. Finding that Bannum’s proposal, by failing to commit Bannum to a fixed price, was materially out of compliance with the terms of the solicitation, the court concluded that Bannum was not an “interested party” entitled to bring its protest under 28 U.S.C. 1491(b). The Federal Circuit affirmed in consolidated appeals, holding that, because Bannum did not adequately present its objection to the solicitations before the awards, Bannum waived its ability to challenge the solicitations. On appeal, Bannum failed to preserve its separate challenges to the bid evaluations. View "Bannum, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

In purchasing a vehicle, Robin Hinkle and her former husband purchased GAP Insurance issued by Safe-Guard Products International, LLC (Safe-Guard). The Hinkles were told that the GAP Insurance would relieve them of payment owed on the vehicle if it was declared a total loss as a result of an accident and more was owed for the vehicle than the value assigned to it at the time it was totaled. Robin was later involved in an accident that resulted in her vehicle being declared a total loss. To pay off the balance owed on the vehicle, Robin submitted a claim to Safe-Guard under the GAP Insurance. Safe-Guard denied coverage. Robin subsequently filed this action against Safe-Guard, alleging breach of contract and bad faith. Robin filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether the GAP Insurance constituted insurance under state law for purposes of this litigation. The circuit court granted the motion. Thereafter, Safe-Guard initiated the instant proceeding seeking a writ of prohibition to preclude enforcement of the partial summary judgment order. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Safe-Guard’s GAP Insurance constituted insurance under the laws of West Virginia. View "State ex rel. Safe-Guard Prods. Int’l LLC v. Hon. Miki Thompson" on Justia Law

Medical provider North Cypress Medical Center Operating Co., Ltd. and North Cypress Medical Center Operating Co. GP, LLC (collectively, “North Cypress” or “the hospital”) sued Cigna Healthcare, Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, and Cigna Healthcare of Texas, Inc. (collectively, “Cigna”) for breach of healthcare plans administered or insured by Cigna. North Cypress argued that Cigna failed to comply with plan terms and underpaid for covered services. Cigna counter-claimed, arguing that it paid more than was owed; that North Cypress as an out-of-network provider did not charge the patients for coinsurance, but billed Cigna as if it had. The district court dismissed North Cypress’s ERISA claims for want of standing and Cigna’s ERISA claims as time barred. Finally, the district court granted summary judgment against North Cypress’s breach of contract claims, concluding there was no breach. North Cypress appealed and Cigna cross-appealed. The Eleventh Circuit, after review, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. In holding that North Cypress had standing to bring ERISA claims, the Court removed the grounds for the district court’s preemption ruling. The parties did not brief the issue of whether the "Discount Agreement" claims would survive un-preempted. Accordingly, the Court vacated the grant of summary judgment and remanded so that the district court could consider the question of preemption in light of our ruling on standing. The Court affirmed the remainder of the district court’s judgment. View "North Cypress Medical Center, et al v. Cigna Health" on Justia Law

In 2001, St. Jude hired Tormey to sell cardiac-related medical devices. Tormey entered into several agreements, providing Tormey’s initial sales quota would be zero due to a noncompete agreement; that St. Jude would hire a technical support specialist (TSS) to assist Tormey; and that St. Jude could terminate Tormey if he failed to meet sales quotas. St. Jude made a $650,000 interest-free loan; Tormey executed a promissory note. Around the time he began selling for St. Jude’s, Tormey’s wife was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer. Tormey informed St. Jude of his wife’s condition. He began inquiring about when St. Jude would hire a TSS and negotiated sales quotas accordingly. Tormey rejected the TSS assigned in October 2003. Tormey’s wife’s condition worsened in November; Tormey thereafter did not meet quotas. She died in May, 2004. Two weeks later, St. Jude, terminated the agreements. Tormey claimed that he accepted St. Jude’s proposal that if Tormey waived any actions against St. Jude, it would waive repayment of the $650,000 and presumed his obligations had been discharged. There are no written documents and St. Jude denies any such agreement. The district court rejected Tormey’s counterclaims alleging fraud and, after a jury was unable to reach a verdict, entered judgment for St. Jude on the note, finding that it did not first commit a material breach. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. View "St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc. v. Tormey" on Justia Law

The 2008 contract for the design and construction of nuclear electrical generating units at a Georgia power plant specifies that it is to be governed by Georgia law. The contractor sought payment after Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements delayed the project and imposed additional costs. The contract calls for mediation. After 60 days, either party may proceed to litigation “in a court of competent jurisdiction,” the parties “agree to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for any legal proceedings.” After mediation the contractor filed its District of Columbia complaint, seeking more than $900 million. The court’s electronic filing log reported “11/01/2012 20:00:01” as the filing time. Georgia Power filed in the Southern District of Georgia, seeking to recover more than $100 million paid under protest and a declaratory judgment. The hard copy of the complaint notes November 1, 2012, 8:00 p.m. as the time of the filing. The district court did not decide who filed first, but determined that the controversy should be adjudicated in Georgia, regardless of which party filed first. The D.C. Circuit affirmed. A clause permitting first-to-file challenges (comparing one lawsuit to another) contemplated that the venue clause was permissive. View "Stone & Webster, Inc. v. Georgia Power Co." on Justia Law

At issue in this shareholder class action was the Schwab Total Bond Market, a mutual fund (the Fund). The Fund was created by Schwab Investments (“Schwab Trust”), and its investment adviser was Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. (“Schwab Advisor”). The named plaintiff, a registered investment advisery and financial planning firm that had over 200,000 shares of the Fund under its management, filed the class action on behalf of investors who alleged that the managers of the Fund failed to adhere to the Fund’s fundamental investment objectives. The district court dismissed the complaint. The Ninth Circuit reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded, holding (1) Northstar had standing to prosecute this case; (2) the district judge erred in dismissing Northstar’s breach of contract claims, as Northstar adequately alleged the formation of a contract between the investors and the trustees; (3) the district judge erred in concluding that Northstar failed to successfully allege a breach of any duty owed directly to Fund investors and that those claims would have to be asserted derivatively; and (4) the district judge erred in dismissing Northstar’s third-party beneficiary breach of contract claim, as Northstar adequately alleged that the investors were third-party beneficiaries of the Investment Advisory and Administration Agreement between Schwab Trust and Schwab Advisor. View "Northstar Fin. Advisors v. Schwab Investments" on Justia Law