Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

In 2008 Motorola agreed to make a good-faith effort to purchase two percent of its cell-phone user-manual needs from Druckzentrum, a printer based in Germany. After a year, Motorola’s sales contracted sharply. Motorola consolidated its cell-phone manufacturing and distribution operations in China, buying all related print products there. Motorola notified Druckzentrum. The companies continued to do business for a few months. After losing Motorola’s business Druckzentrum entered bankruptcy and sued Motorola, alleging breach of contract and fraud in the inducement. Druckzentrum claimed that the contract gave it an exclusive right to all of Motorola’s user-manual printing business for cell phones sold in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia during the contract period. The district judge entered summary judgment for Motorola. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The written contract contained no promise of an exclusive right and was fully integrated, so Druckzentrum cannot use parol evidence of prior understandings. Although Motorola promised to make a good-faith effort, the contract listed reasons Motorola might justifiably miss the target, including business downturns. There was no evidence of bad faith. The evidence was insufficient to create a jury issue on the claim that Motorola fraudulently induced Druckzentrum to enter into or continue the contract. View "Druckzentrum Harry Jung GmbH v. Motorola Mobility LLC" on Justia Law

Ibson and her family were insured by UHS through a policy available to her to as a member of her law firm. Due to an error, UHS began informing Ibson’s medical providers that Ibson and her family no longer had insurance coverage. Although UHS eventually paid the claims it should have paid all along, Ibson sued, raising state law claims of breach of contract, negligence, and bad faith, and seeking punitive damages. UHS responded that Ibson’s claims were preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and barred by the policy’s three-year contractual limitations period. The district court agreed and entered summary. The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded, agreeing that Ibson’s state law claims are preempted under ERISA, but rejecting entry of summary judgment on the basis of the three-year contractual limitations period. View "Ibson v. United Healthcare Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

Borrowers executed the Note in favor of GACC in the amount of $62,000,000, with a maturity date of August 2016. Borrowers, as trustors, executed in favor of Chicago Title Company, as trustee, a “Deed of Trust, Assignment of Leases and Rents, Security Agreement and Fixture Filing” for the benefit of GACC with respect to the real property security—the Trust Property—which included real property in Los Angeles County. The individual defendants executed a Guaranty of “all obligations, requirements, and indemnities of Borrowers under the Loan Documents.” Through various assignments and a merger, plaintiff became the holder of the Loan Documents. In 2011, plaintiffs claimed default by failure to make various required payments and purported to accelerate the loan and claim interest at the default rate. Borrowers apparently filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition under Chapter 11. The trial court granted plaintiff summary judgment of $81,850,619.33, which included a “Yield Maintenance Amount”—i.e. a prepayment fee—of $14,007,811.30. The court of appeal reversed, holding that even though the legal issue was not raised before the trial court, the documents should be interpreted so that the prepayment obligation only accrues upon payment and not on acceleration of the Note. View "U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Yashouafar" on Justia Law

The City of Oklahoma City charged Christopher Tucker with municipal misdemeanor offenses of interfering with official process, obstructing an officer, and failing to obey lawful commands of an officer. Tucker signed an agreement for the Cochran Firm-Criminal Defense, Birmingham, L.L.C. to provide him with legal representation for his scheduled trial in October of 2010. Tucker was found guilty of a municipal charge. Tucker alleged that the firm's Case Manager informed him that the law firm would engage in a four to five-day trial to defend him, the law firm would provide an experienced trial lawyer with twenty to thirty years of experience to represent him at trial, and that the law firm "had attorneys who were licensed to practice in Oklahoma and who would in fact defend the Plaintiff in trial . . . ." He alleged that these statements were untrue and were made to fraudulently induce him to enter into an agreement for legal services and to pay "outrageous fees." From Tucker's complaint, he alleged: (1) the firm required a non-refundable retainer of $13,690.00 for legal representation for the trial; (2) after he signed the agreement, the Cochran Firm informed him that a specific attorney would represent him but that another showed up at trial; (3) the morning of his trial was the first time he met the attorney who actually represented him at his trial; and (4) the firm failed to properly represent him. After filing an amended motion to dismiss, the trial court determined that the forum-selection clause in the retainer agreement should be judicially enforced. The trial court also determined that enforcement of a forum-selection clause would not be unfair or unreasonable under the circumstances. The trial court dismissed the action for improper venue. Tucker appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals concluded that the forum-selection clause should not have been enforced, reversed the trial court's order dismissing his claims, and remanded the matter for further proceedings in the District Court. The law firm petitioned for certiorari. After review, the Supreme Court concluded: (1) when a parties' agreement has an interstate forum-selection clause and a party seeks its judicial enforcement in an Oklahoma District Court by seeking dismissal of the Oklahoma proceeding, then the procedure for its enforcement is by a motion pursuant to 12 O.S. section 2012(B)(6), or Rule 13 motion for summary judgment; and (2) an interstate forum-selection clause is separable from the contract in which it appears, and its validity like any other provision in a contract is subject to the requirements of a valid contract. The appellate court's decision was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Tucker v. Cochran Firm-Criminal Defense Birmingham, LLC" on Justia Law

Hyundai Amco America, Inc. and S3H, Inc. entered into a subcontractor services agreement. According to the agreement, disputes would be subject to arbitration. Hyundai Amco sued S3H for breaching the agreement, as well as for other related causes of action. S3H filed a motion to compel arbitration; the trial court denied the motion on the ground that S3H had failed to allege: (1) it demanded arbitration, and (2) Hyundai Amco refused. S3H appealed, and the Court of Appeal reversed: under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, a party requesting a court order for arbitration must prove the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate, and that the other party refuses to arbitrate their controversy. S3H unquestionably established the existence of the parties’ written agreement containing an arbitration provision; Hyundai Amco did not dispute this fact. The Court held that S3H was not required to make a formal demand for arbitration because Hyundai Amco’s filing of a complaint invoked the protections and procedures of the court system, and thus was an effective refusal of arbitration. S3H met its burden under section 1281.2. View "Hyundai Amco v. S3H, Inc." on Justia Law

Marina Pacifica was built on Long Beach waterfront land owned by McGrath and leased to the limited partnership (LP) in the 1970s. The ground lease was subdivided into 570 leases, one for each condominium unit. When LP sold a unit, it assigned the unit lease to the purchaser. The leases required owners to pay monthly rent to McGrath and an “assignment fee” to LP. Both payments were nominal ($15) until 2006, when they would be recalculated so that together, they would equal 10 percent of the value of the underlying land. In 1999, the Homeowners Association purchased the underlying land from McGrath for $17 million. Each owner paid a pro rata share. Owners no longer pay rent. The HOA attempted to buy out the assignment fee before the 2006 adjustment. In 2000, it purchased the interests of two limited partners (56.25 percent) for $5 million. It was unable to reach agreement with Lansdale to buy his 43.75 percent interest. Litigation resulted in a finding that the land’s fair market value was $60,615,500. The HOA instructed owners not to pay and filed suit, alleging that the assignment fee is invalid or overstated, and that the purchase of the underlying land extinguished the lease. The court of appeal reversed a holding that the assignment fee was an invalid transfer fee after December 31, 2008, under Civil Code 1098 and 1098.5 and directed the court to enter judgment for the HOA on contract claims. View "Marina Pac. Homeowners Ass'n v. So. Cal. Fin. Corp." on Justia Law

Appellee signed a contract in December 2010, to rent a car from Appellant Enterprise Leasing Company of Philadelphia, LLC (“Enterprise”). She agreed in the contract that she would pay for repairs for any damage the car incurred during the rental period, along with any administrative, loss-of-use, and diminishment-in-value fees. The contract set forth formulas for calculating the loss-of-use and diminishment-in-value fees. It also contained a power-of-attorney clause allowing Enterprise to request payment for any unpaid “claims, damages, liabilities, or rental charges” directly from Appellee’s insurance carrier or credit card company. When Appellee returned the car following the rental, an Enterprise employee informed her that she was responsible for a scratch on the car. Enterprise later sent Appellee a letter with an estimate for repairs and an invoice for administrative, loss-of-use, and diminishment-of-value fees, for a total of $840.42. Appellee, represented by counsel, sued Enterprise, filing a six-count complaint that included a claim for damages under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law's ("UTPCPL) “catchall” provision. Appellee’s complaint alleged that Enterprise had engaged in deceptive acts and had made misrepresentations by charging her unconscionable fees bearing no reasonable relationship to the costs of repairing the alleged damage to the car. The Superior Court reversed as to Appellee’s UTPCPL claim, concluding that Appellee had sufficiently pled an “ascertainable loss.” The court considered Enterprise’s alleged threats to collect the $840.42 from Appellee’s auto insurance carrier and her credit card issuer, and Appellee’s hiring counsel to file suit to halt Enterprise’s collection efforts, to be sufficient to satisfy the “ascertainable loss” requirement. The court also pointed out that Enterprise had stipulated that it would cease its collection efforts only if the trial court granted its motion. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Enterprise argued that merely retaining an attorney to commence suit cannot satisfy the UTPCPL’s “ascertainable loss” element. The Supreme Court concluded that Appellee’s construction of the “ascertainable loss” element as including attorney fees was unreasonable, and contradicted by the plain language of the statute. Accordingly, the Court reversed. View "Grimes v. Enterprise Leasing Co of Phila." on Justia Law

In this matter, Appellants John and Kathy St. John challenged the Superior Court’s decision to affirm a declaratory judgment order finding Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company (“Penn National”) liable for a judgment against its insured LPH Plumbing and Heating under a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy in effect from July 1, 2003 to July 1, 2004. The Supreme Court granted review to determine whether, under the facts of this case and the policy language at issue, Penn National was instead liable for the judgment against its insured under a separate policy of CGL insurance as well as a companion umbrella policy in effect from July 1, 2005 to July 1, 2006. Furthermore, the Court also considered whether the multiple trigger theory of liability insurance coverage (adopted by the Supreme Court in "J.H. France Refractories Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co.," 626 A.2d 502 (Pa. 1993)), within the context of asbestos bodily injury claims applied in this case, where property damage was continuous and progressive, to trigger coverage under all policies in effect from exposure to the harmful condition to manifestation of the injury. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed all aspects of the lower court’s decision finding that coverage was triggered under the policy in effect from July 1, 2003 to July 1, 2004, when property damage became reasonably apparent, and declining to apply the multiple trigger theory of liability insurance coverage. View "PA Natl Mut Casualty v. St. John" on Justia Law

In 2007, Jared Wolfe was injured when his vehicle was hit from behind by an automobile driven by Karl Zierle. Wolfe attributed blame to Zierle and demanded $25,000 from Zierle’s insurer carrier, Appellant Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, equating to half the liability limits under the applicable policy. Allstate counteroffered $1,200, which Wolfe refused. Wolfe then instituted a personal injury action against Zierle seeking compensatory damages grounded in negligence. Allstate assumed Zierle’s defense while maintaining its additional right, under the policy, to effectuate a settlement. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepted certification from a federal appeals court to clarify whether, under Pennsylvania law, an insured may assign the right to recover damages from his insurance company deriving from the insurer’s bad faith toward the insured. The Court concluded that the entitlement to assert damages under Pennsylvania law may be assigned by an insured to an injured plaintiff and judgment creditor such as Wolfe. Having answered the certified question, the Court returned the matter to the federal court. View "Allstate Prop & Casualty Ins Co. v. Wolfe" on Justia Law

In an interlocutory appeal, the issues before the Supreme Court were: (1) whether a negligence claim brought against an insurer by its insureds for alleged statements made by the insurer’s adjuster and an engineer the insurer had retained (that mold the insureds discovered while performing home renovations was harmless and that they should continue their renovations) was barred by the “gist of the action” doctrine on the grounds that the true gist or gravamen of the action was an alleged breach of the insurance contract (their homeowners’ policy); and (2) whether the provisions of Pa.R.C.P. 1042.1 and 1042.3 required the insureds to obtain a certificate of merit in order for them to proceed with their negligence suit against the professional engineer employed by the insurer to evaluate the mold. After careful review, the Supreme Court held that the insureds’ negligence claim was not barred by the gist of the action doctrine, as the claim was based on an alleged breach of a social duty imposed by the law of torts, and not a breach of a duty created by the underlying contract of insurance. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the insureds were not required to obtain a certificate of merit in order to proceed with their negligence suit against the professional engineer, since they were not patients or clients of the engineering company which employed him. Consequently, the Court reversed the Superior Court and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bruno v. Erie Insurance" on Justia Law