Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Defendant-Appellant First Health Settlement Class appealed a superior court order that granted partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee Chartis Specialty Insurance Company. This was one of a number of class action cases filed against First Health and others in the State of Louisiana. In those actions, medical service providers alleged that First Health violated notice provisions contained in a Louisiana statute known as the Preferred Provider Organizations Act. First Health ultimately entered into a settlement in which it resolved all of the Louisiana litigation. Chartis was First Health's errors and omissions insurance insurer. The policy had a number of exclusions, one of which was an exclusion for "penalties." The issue this case presented for the Delaware Supreme Court's review was whether the amount that First Health paid to settle the Louisiana litigation was a "penalty," and, therefore, not a covered loss under the insurance policy. The superior court concluded that the amount paid was a "penalty." The Delaware court disagreed, concluding that it was not a "penalty," and that the policy's exclusion for "penalties" did not apply. View "The First Health Settlement Class v. Chartis Speciality Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant CorVel Corporation appealed a superior court order that granted partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee Homeland Insurance Company of New York. This was one of a number of class action cases filed against CorVel and others in the State of Louisiana. In those actions, medical service providers alleged that CorVel violated notice provisions contained in a Louisiana statute known as the Preferred Provider Organizations Act. CorVel ultimately entered into a settlement in which it resolved all of the Louisiana litigation. Homeland was CorVel's errors and omissions insurance insurer. The policy had a number of exclusions, one of which was an exclusion for "penalties." The issue this case presented for the Delaware Supreme Court's review was whether the amount that CorVel paid to settle the Louisiana litigation was a "penalty," and, therefore, not a covered loss under the insurance policy. The superior court concluded that the amount paid was a "penalty." The Delaware court disagreed, concluding that it was not a "penalty," and that the policy's exclusion for "penalties" did not apply. View "Corvel Corporation v. Homeland Insurance Company of New York" on Justia Law

The Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) made a $267 million loan to Open Range to finance construction of wireless broadband networks in 540 RUS-approved markets. Open Range subcontracted with G4S. The FCC suspended a permit, so that Open Range lost the spectrum rights necessary to operate the planned network. RUS gave notice of its intent to terminate remaining funds on the loan unless Open Range could obtain replacement rights. Open Range began failing to meet its obligations to subcontractors. The Secretary of Agriculture made loan money available, provided a press release, and offered to reassure subcontractors, but Open Range was unable to regain the full spectrum rights necessary to complete the original project. RUS and Open Range executed an amendment to reflect a loan amount reduced to $180 million, and 160 RUS-approved markets, but Open Range remained unable to satisfy its debts and filed for bankruptcy. G4S filed suit. The Claims Court held that G4S was not a third party beneficiary to the agreement. The Federal Circuit affirmed, stating that G4S asked that the government incur liability simply because it talked to the individuals in charge of a failing project in an attempt to fix the problems. View "G4S Tech., LLC v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2003, the VA entered into a contract with Reliable for electrical improvements at a VA medical center, requiring installation of three backup generators, “new and of the most suitable grade.” Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.211-5, incorporated by reference, requires that supplies be “new, reconditioned, or remanufactured,” and defines “new” as “composed of previously unused components.” Reliable sub-contracted to Fisk, which contracted with DTE. In 2004, DTE delivered two Cummins Power Generation generators to the construction site. The VA’s senior resident engineer inspected the generators and determined that they were not “new.” He wrote to Reliable, stating: They show a lot of wear and tear including field burns to enlarge mounting holes. Are they new and will you certify them as such? I cannot pay you … without that certification. Fisk and Reliable initially agreed that the generators did not meet the contract specification. After investigation, they concluded that the generators, manufactured in 2000, had been previously purchased by others but never used. Fisk obtained different generators, which were accepted by the VA. In 2007, Reliable submitted a claim, seeking $1,100,000 for additional costs incurred as a result of rejection of the original generators. In 2013, the Board of Contract Appeals denied Reliable’s claim. The Federal Circuit vacated, holding that the Board erred in its interpretation of the contract. View "Reliable Contracting Grp., LLC v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs" on Justia Law

James Stanley, Barbara Stanley and Northeast Marine Services, Inc. (collectively, “Stanley”) were parties to a binding arbitration with Michael Liberty and five corporations under his control (“the Liberty corporate entities”) regarding contractual and fiduciary disputes arising from Stanley’s tenure as an officer and director of the Liberty corporate entities. Many of Stanley’s claims were rejected, but the three main issues relevant to this appeal were decided in favor of Stanley. The business and consumer docket affirmed the arbitration award in full. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) in challenging the arbitrator’s findings that Stanley had not engaged in a breach of fiduciary duty regarding transactions involving the Liberty corporate corporate entities, Liberty and the Liberty corporate entities asked the court to review fact-findings by the arbitrator, and such findings were not reviewable; (2) Liberty and the Liberty corporate entities did not demonstrate that the arbitrator exceeded his broad authority in interpreting the retirement contract that generated this litigation; and (3) the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by deciding to pierce the corporate veil and make Liberty personally liable for obligations of his closely-controlled corporations. View "Stanley v. Liberty" on Justia Law

In September 2006, Blue Shield, canceled DuBeck’s medical insurance policy, claiming DuBeck had made material misrepresentations in her application and concealed that she had undergone a fine needle aspiration for a lump in her breast days before submitting the application. The policy had been in effect 17 months. Blue Shield had paid medical claims unrelated to the breast cancer, deemed a pre-existing condition. The cancellation letter expressly stated that Blue Shield was electing to cancel coverage prospectively, rather than rescind the policy, and that any claims for covered services incurred prior to cancellation would be covered. In September 2008, DuBeck filed suit, alleging that Blue Shield had failed to pay covered claims while the policy was in force. Blue Shield asserted its right to rescind the policy, voiding it ab initio. The trial court granted Blue Shield summary judgment. The court of appeal reversed, holding that the 2006 decision to cancel, rather than rescind the policy; the affirmation of coverage up to that date and assurance that it would pay for services covered prior to cancellation; retention of premium; and failure to assert a right to rescind until more than two years after Blue Cross had all the pertinent facts, constituted a waiver of the right to rescind. View "DuBeck v. Cal. Physicians' Serv." on Justia Law

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) was appointed to act as receiver for the assets of First Heritage Bank, N.A. (“Heritage”). Heritage had previously purchased, pursuant to an agreement (“Agreement”), interest in a commercial loan that Professional Business Bank (“PBB”) had made to Al’s Garden Art, Inc. The FDIC subsequently sold Heritage’s interest under the Agreement to Commerce First Financial, Inc. (“CFF”). When Al’s Garden Art defaulted on its loan obligations, PBB sued to collect on the loan. CFF then brought a breach of contract action against PBB. PBB filed a third party complaint against the FDIC, alleging that the FDIC’s failure to satisfy the Agreement’s pre-receivership contractual provisions constituted breach of contract. The FDIC moved to dismiss on the grounds that the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (“FIRREA”) preempted PBB’s claims. The district court denied the motion and granted summary judgment for PBB. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the FDIC, in its role of receiver of a closed bank, may not breach underlying asset contractual obligations without consequence. View "Bank of Manhattan, N.A. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp." on Justia Law

In 2012, the Montgomery County Council in Maryland approved plans to tear down the White Flint Shopping Center (the “Mall”) and redevelop the site into a mixed-use, town-center-style development. Lord & Taylor, LLC, which operated a retail store connected with the Mall, filed this action seeking a declaration that the Mall’s owner, White Flint, L.P., was precluded from going forward with the development and seeking a permanent injunction to enjoin White Flint from carrying out the redevelopment. The district court denied Lord & Taylor’s request for injunctive relief, determining that an injunction would be unworkable given the “advanced stage[ ]” of the project. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Maryland law clearly authorized the district court to go beyond the state-law presumption in favor of injunctive relief to consider feasibility and related equitable concerns; and (2) the district court did not err in finding that injunctive relief would be infeasible. View "Lord & Taylor, LLC v. White Flint, L.P." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, Renewable Resources, Inc., purchased the Potter Hill Mill, which was slated for demolition. Plaintiff and the Town of Westerly subsequently entered into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) in which Plaintiff pledged to meet a series of conditions to stave off demolition. Due to Plaintiff’s failure to expeditiously pursue its development plan, the Town began requesting proposals for the mill’s demolition. Plaintiff subsequently filed this action seeking a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction against the Town barring demolition of the mill. A superior court justice entered a preliminary injunction order. The superior court later vacated the preliminary injunction and permitted the Town to issue a demolition order, concluding that Plaintiff had breached the MOA. In a subsequent judgment, the superior court dismissed the remaining counts of Plaintiff’s complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing justice acted within his discretion in vacating the preliminary injunction. View "Renewable Res., Inc. v. Town of Westerly" on Justia Law

Sysdyne Corporation and Xigent Solutions, LLC provide staff augmentation services to companies in the engineering and information industries. When Brian Rousslang, a former employee of Sysdyne Corporation who was subject to a noncompete agreement, obtained employment with Xigent Solutions, LLC, Sysdyne sued Xigent for tortious interference with contract and sued Rousslang for breach of contract. The trial court (1) awarded damages to Sysdyne on its breach of contract claim with respect to certain preexisting customers Rousslang brought with him from Sysdyne to Xigent; but (2) ruled in favor of Xigent on the tortious interference claim, concluding that Xigent was justified in interfering with the contract because Xigent conducted a reasonable inquiry into the enforceability of the noncompete agreement and, based on advice of outside counsel, honestly believed that the agreement was unenforceable. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the justification defense to a claim of tortious interference with a contract may be satisfied by a defendant’s reliance on incorrect advice of outside counsel; and (2) under the facts of this case, the trial court did not err in concluding that Xigent met its burden of proving the justification defense. View "Sysdyne Corp. v. Rousslang" on Justia Law