Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

IPSCO Tubulars contracted for Ajax to provide equipment to heat-treat steel pipe at IPSCO’s Blythesville plant, which produces pipe for use in the oil and gas industry. After installation, the product did not perform properly. Tubing processed through the equipment was badly distorted. IPSCO sued for breach of contract, gross negligence, and punitive damages. The district court found Ajax liable for breach of contract, awarding $5,162,298.55 in damages. The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded the breach-of-contract damages, holding that there were inadequate findings to support the award, and affirmed in all other respects. The most reasonable interpretation of the contract as a whole obligated Ajaxto provide equipment that could uniformly heat-treat pipe, at 96 fpm, without causing distortion, cracks or inconsistencies that would prevent the pipe's conversion to higher American Petroleum Institute grades; the evidence was sufficient to establish that the defects in the Ajax equipment was the cause of the defects in the pipe. View "IPSCO Tubulars, Inc. v. Ajax TOCCO Magnathermic Corp." on Justia Law

Covol Fuels No. 4, LLC (Covol) and Pinnacle Mining Co., LLC (Pinnacle) were parties to a business agreement - a fully integrated contract - wherein Covol conducted coal fines recovery operations at Pinnacle’s mine in Wyoming County, West Virginia. Covol was authorized to unilaterally terminate the contract if its operations became economically unfeasible. After it became economically unfeasible for Covol to continue in the business, Covol initiated this action, alleging four claims. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Pinnacle as to all claims. Covol appealed, contending that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on its breach of contract claim and on its tort claims. The Fourth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) genuine issues of material fact existed with respect to Covol’s breach of contract claim that a jury must decide; and (2) Covol’s tort claims were barred by the “gist of the action doctrine.” View "Covol Fuels No. 4, LLC v. Pinnacle Mining Co., LLC" on Justia Law

Shaun Trabert purchased a used vehicle from an automobile dealer. Trabert signed a preprinted industry-drafted installment sales contract. The dealer then assigned the contract to Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. Portfolio later repossessed Trabert's vehicle, and Trabert filed a class action complaint alleging Portfolio's repossession/default notices were defective under consumer statutes. This appeal was the second time the issue of an automobile purchaser who brought consumer claims against the creditor-assignee of the parties' sales contract came before the Court of Appeal. The first appeal involved the enforceability of an arbitration agreement in the contract. In "Trabert I," the Court held the arbitration agreement contained certain unconscionable provisions, and remanded for the court to determine whether these provisions could be severed from the remaining agreement. On remand, the trial court declined to sever the provisions and denied the creditor-assignee's motion to compel arbitration. Portfolio challenged the trial court's last order in this second appeal. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded the trial court erred in denying Portfolio's motion. "The unconscionable provisions concern only exceptions to the finality of the arbitration award, and can be deleted without affecting the core purpose and intent of the arbitration agreement. The deletion of these exceptions creates a binding arbitration award and promotes the fundamental attributes of arbitration, including speed, efficiency, and lower costs." The Court reversed and remanded with directions for the court to sever the unconscionable provisions from the arbitration agreement and granted Portfolio's motion to compel arbitration. View "Trabert v. Consumer Portfolio Services" on Justia Law

Appellee Palm Energy Offshore, L.L.C. owned the mineral rights in an area of the Gulf of Mexico called the West Delta 55 block (“WD55”). Palm also served as the court-appointed manager for appellee H.C. Resources, L.L.C. (“HCR”) and its mineral holdings at another Gulf location, the Chandeleur 37 block (“C37”). Acting as HCR’s manager, Palm asked CM to service one of HCR’s wells at C37. CM agreed and chartered a lift boat, the L/B Nicole Eymard from appellee Offshore Marine Contractors, Inc. to perform maintenance work. The ship worked at C37 from July 18 until July 27. On July 27, Palm, now acting on its own behalf, asked CM to send the Nicole Eymard to WD55. CM dispatched the ship to WD55. After completing the job at WD55, the crew of the Nicole Eymard attempted to retract the ship’s legs from the ocean floor. The crew discovered that one of the legs was stuck. The crew worked to free the leg until August 18, when Offshore ordered the crew to sever the leg and return to port ahead of an approaching storm. In port, Offshore completed repairs on the ship on October 10. Offshore then sued CM and Palm for charter fees that accrued from July 15 to August 18, for “downtime charter” from August 19 to October 10, and for the cost of repairs. CM and Palm then filed various counter- and cross-claims against each other and Offshore. CM and Offshore’s claims against each other are governed in part by the terms of an oral charter agreement. CM and Palm’s claims against each other are governed in part by the terms of a Master Service Agreement (“MSA”), and in part by a specific work order. The MSA contained an indemnity agreement (“Indemnity Agreement”). After a bench trial, the district court held that CM owed Offshore for charter fees that accrued from July 15 to July 27 while the Nicole Eymard was at C37, and for charter fees that accrued from July 28 to August 18 while the ship was at WD55. The court held that CM could recover the same fees from Palm. The court held that neither CM nor Palm owed Offshore for downtime charter fees from August 19 to October 10, or for repairs. CM, Offshore, and Palm filed motions to alter or amend the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. The court granted these motions to the extent they sought clarification regarding the court’s order on prejudgment interest. The court determined that the Indemnity Agreement barred CM from seeking repayment for those fees. The court denied the parties’ motions in all other respects. CM appealed from the district court’s judgment and its post-trial order. Finding no reversible error in the district court’s judgment and post-trial order, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. View "Offshore Marine Contractors, et al v. Palm Energy" on Justia Law

Central Southwest Texas Development, LLC and Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) entered into a lease agreement in November 2007: Central was to construct a WaMu bank branch in Austin, and deliver it to WaMu by January 1, 2008, after which WaMu would owe rent to Central for the twenty-year term of the lease. Central did not yet have fee simple ownership of the property, but had contracted to purchase it and had deposited earnest money in escrow. After a number of extensions of the deadline, Central had not yet closed on the property at the time of WaMu’s collapse in September 2008. WaMu was declared insolvent and the FDIC was appointed as its receiver. JPMorgan Chase Bank acquired most of WaMu’s assets and liabilities under a Purchase and Assumption (P&A) Agreement with the FDIC. If Chase declined, the FDIC would have been authorized to repudiate “burdensome” leases if doing so would “promote the orderly administration of [WaMu’s] affairs.” Having determined that Chase was unlikely to accept the lease based on the proximity of Chase branches to the leased property, a Central executive emailed the FDIC and asked to be “release[d] . . . from the Lease obligation in order to pursue other options.” Central was soon notified by Chase of its rejection of the lease and by the FDIC of its repudiation. Central subsequently closed on the property. Having failed to find a replacement tenant, Central sold the property the same day a little more than it paid. Central later concluded that the lease did not qualify as "Bank Premises" under the P&A Agreement because no banking facilities were occupied (or even built) by the time of WaMu’s failure. With this new understanding of the lease’s status, Central filed this lawsuit against Chase for breach. After Central moved for summary judgment, the district court held that the lease was not a Bank Premises lease, and therefore that Chase could not decline assignment under the P&A Agreement. Consistent with the Fifth Circuit's ruling in "Excel Willowbrook, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA (758 F.3d 592 (2014)), the district court also held that this assignment created privity of estate between Central and Chase, and therefore that Central had standing to assert its interpretation of the P&A Agreement. Chase also moved for summary judgment on the ground that the email communications between the parties constituted a mutual termination of the lease. ROA 2048. The case proceeded to a bench trial, and the district court ruled that Chase’s attempted rejection of the lease was an anticipatory breach, entitling Central to contract damages and excusing it from further performance. Chase and the FDIC appealed. After review, the Fifth Circuit found "no reason to disturb the trial court's finding" that no mutual termination occurred. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court. View "Central SW Texas Devel, L.L.C. v. JP Morgan Chase" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Patricia Clements refinanced a mortgage with Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., which hired LSI Title Agency, Inc. to provide mortgage refinancing services for the transaction. Because Georgia law required all closing services to be performed by a licensed attorney, LSI contracted with the Law Offices of William E. Fair, LLC to provide a closing attorney, and the Law Offices arranged for Sean Rogers to serve in that capacity. After the refinancing, Clements filed a putative class action in a state court against LSI, the Law Offices, Fair, and other unnamed defendants. Clements alleged that LSI routinely had non-attorneys prepare all of the documents for the closing and that the Law Offices and Fair arranged for a licensed attorney, Rogers, to witness the signing of the documents, in violation of Georgia law. This appeal presented three questions to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals for review: (1) whether an allegation that a lender charged a borrower for unearned fees conferred standing on the borrower; (2) whether a mortgage service provider performs only nominal services when it procures a closing attorney; and (3) whether a mortgage service provider "give[s or] . . . accept[s] any portion, split, or percentage of any [settlement] charge" when it marks up the price of a third-party service. Clements alleged two violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and three violations of Georgia law. The district court dismissed the amended complaint for lack of standing. Although the Eleventh Circuit concluded that Clements had standing to sue, the Court affirmed in part the dismissal of her federal claims for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and vacated in part and remanded for the district court to decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her claims under Georgia law. View "Clements v. LSI Title Agency, Inc." on Justia Law

Synergy4 Enterprises, Inc. brought an action against Pinnacle Bank on claims of promissory estoppel, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud, alleging that Pinnacle Bank caused damages by orally assuring Synergy4 that Pinnacle would provide a $1 million credit line and then only providing $400,000 provided for in a commitment letter. The district court sustained Pinnacle’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Synergy4’s claims were barred by Nebraska’s credit agreement statute of frauds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Synergy4’s claims were based on a credit agreement that was not in writing, they were barred by Nebraska’s credit agreement statute of frauds. View "Synergy4 Enters., Inc. v. Pinnacle Bank" on Justia Law

Buyer entered into a contract with Seller under which Buyer agreed to purchase certain product manufactured by Seller. Buyer rarely purchased the contractual amount of 2,500 tons of product per month. Seller field an amended complaint against Seller, claiming breach of contract and alleging that Buyer’s failure to comply with the contract forced Seller to sell over 9,000 tons of product at prices significantly below the price Seller was guaranteed by the contract. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Seller, concluding, as a matter of law, that Buyer materially breached the contract. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the judgment of the district court regarding Buyer’s liability for its material breach of the contract; but (2) reversed the court’s award of damages and prejudgment interest, holding that the court erred in awarding damages and prejudgment interest at the summary judgment stage due the existence of questions of fact relevant to Seller’s losses. Remanded. View "Siouxland Ethanol, LLC v. Sebade Bros., LLC" on Justia Law

The Iowa Department of Economic Development (IDED) and Ghost Player, LLC executed a contract for tax credits under which Ghost Player believed it would receive certain tax credits for a documentary film it produced. CH Investors, LLC was a third-party beneficiary to the contract. The IDED declined to issue the contracted tax credit for some of the investments and expenditures of Ghost Player. Ghost Player and CH Investors subsequently filed a breach of contract action against the IDED. The district court dismissed the action on the grounds that Ghost Player failed to exhaust its remedies under the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) was without authority to hear the case because the IDED actions in this case required Ghost Player to exhaust its administrative remedies prior to filing a case in district court; and (2) correctly found the process used by the IDED in processing the claim did not offend due process principles under the State or the Federal Constitutions. View "Ghost Player, LLC v. State" on Justia Law

DVI Receivables XIV, LLC; DVI Receivables XVI, LLC; DVI Receivables XVII, LLC; DVI Receivables XVIII, LLC; DVI Receivables XIX, LLC; DVI Funding, LLC (collectively, the "DVI Entities"); Lyon Financial Services, Inc. d/b/a U.S. Bank Portfolio Services ("Lyon"); and U.S. Bank, N.A. ("USB") (collectively, "Appellants") appealed a district court decision to affirm a bankruptcy court's final order awarding appellee Maury Rosenberg attorney's fees and costs. The DVI Entities filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition against appellee Rosenberg. After the bankruptcy court dismissed the petition, the court awarded attorney's fees and costs to appellee Rosenberg. The bankruptcy court granted Rosenberg's motion and dismissed the involuntary petition with prejudice. The bankruptcy court found, inter alia, that the DVI Entities were not eligible creditors of Rosenberg because his 2005 guaranty did not run to the DVI Entities. The DVI Entities therefore lacked standing as a matter of law to file an involuntary petition against Rosenberg. In his adversary complaint, Rosenberg asserted federal claims to recover attorney's fees, costs, and damages he incurred because of the filing of the involuntary petition, which the bankruptcy court had dismissed. After careful review of the record and the parties' briefs, and following oral argument, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The Court affirmed the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's award of the following three categories of attorney's fees and costs: (1) fees to obtain the dismissal, (2) appellate fees, and (3) fees on fees. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's award of the fourth category of fees and costs, those incurred to prosecute Rosenberg's bad-faith claims for damages, as prematurely entered. The case was remanded back to the district court: (1) to deduct from the total award the limited amount of fees and costs that were incurred solely for the legal work done to prosecute Rosenberg's bad-faith claims for damages; and (2) to reconsider that deducted fee and cost amount along with the motion to supplement. View "DVI Receivables XIV, LLC, et al. v. Rosenberg" on Justia Law