Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals certified a question of Florida law to the Florida Supreme Court. Two cases before the Eleventh Circuit involved three Stranger-Originated Life Insurance (STOLI policies). Wells Fargo, N.A., the present owner of a STOLI policy on the life of Arlene Berger, appealed a district court's final judgment, entered in favor of Pruco Life Insurance Company, invalidating this policy. Regarding the second appeal, Pruco appealed a different district court's order dismissing its claim seeking the invalidation of two STOLI policies issued on the life of Rosalind Guild. The insurance company contended that, as with most STOLI policies, there was no such interest when these policies were issued, which the company says entitled it to have the policies declared void. Undermining the insurance company's argument, however, was another Florida statute requiring all insurance policies to include a clause providing that the policy is incontestable after it has been "in force" for two years. The policies at issue here contained such a clause, and the insurance company clearly failed to contest the policies within that two-year window. Thus, the question before the Eleventh Circuit was which statute controlled. Federal district courts have disagreed when asked how to interpret Florida law in this regard. View "Pruco Life Insurance Company v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Licensees entered into a licensing agreement with Safeblood Tech for the exclusive rights to market patented technology overseas. After learning that they could not register the patents in other countries, Licensees sued Safeblood for breach of contract and sued Safeblood, its officers, and patent inventor for fraud, constructive fraud, and violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA), Ark. Code 4-88-101 to -115. The district court dismissed the fraud claims at summary judgment. The remaining claims proceeded to trial and a jury found for Licensees, awarding them $786,000 in contract damages and no damages for violations of the ADTPA. The district court awarded Licensees $144,150.40 in prejudgment interest. The Eighth Circuit reversed as to the common-law fraud claim and the award of prejudgment interest, but otherwise affirmed. Licensees produced sufficient evidence that the inventor made a false statement of fact; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it gave the jury a diminution-in-product-value instruction; and Licensees waived their inconsistent-verdict argument. View "Yazdianpour v. Safeblood Techs., Inc." on Justia Law

Select Comfort manufactures and sells Sleep Number bedding, which has inflatable air chambers that adjust to vary mattress firmness; it sells those beds through its own retail stores. In 2005, Sleepy’s, a bedding retailer, and Select executed an agreement making Sleepy’s a Sleep Number authorized retailer only for Select’s “Personal Preference” line. Sales were disappointing. In response to reports that Select salespeople were disparaging Sleepy’s and its Personal Preference line, Sleepy’s began conducting “secret shops.” Sleepy’s contends its undercover shopping revealed a pattern of disparagement. In 2007, Sleepy’s confronted Select; the parties executed a Wind-Up Agreement. Sleepy’s sued, alleging that Select breached the agreement by failing to provide “first quality merchandise,” and by violating a non-disparagement clause. Sleepy’s also asserted fraudulent inducement, slander per se, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair competition, and violation of the Lanham Act. The district court granted judgment for Select, finding that the contract had expired on September 30, 2006 and that Sleepy’s had consented to the allegedly slanderous statements. The Second Circuit vacated, except with respect to the “first quality merchandise” claim. The court erred in treating “expiration” and “termination” as interchangeable terms referring to the end of the contract term. View "SleepyÂ’s, LLC v. Select Comfort Wholesale Corp." on Justia Law

Entergy Arkansas, Inc. and Entergy Operations, Inc. (collectively, “Entergy”) entered into an agreement with Siemens Energy, Inc. (“Siemens”) under which Siemens was to provide Entergy with services at three nuclear facilities. The agreement included an arbitration provision. Pursuant to the agreement, Entergy and Siemens agreed that Siemens would replace a large component of a generator at Entergy’s Arkansas Nuclear One (“ANO”) facility. Siemens had a separate, long-term agreement with Bigge Crane and Rigging Co. and Claus Frederiksen (collectively, “Bigge”) under which Bigge would prove crane services for Siemens at ANO. After a crane built and operated by Bigge collapsed at ANO, killing one person, injuring ten others, and causing significant damages to ANO, Entergy filed suit against Bigge and others, alleging several tort claims. Bigge moved to compel arbitration of Entergy’s claims against Bigge as a purported third-party beneficiary of the agreement between Entergy and Siemens. The circuit court denied Bigge’s motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in concluding (1) that, under the facts of this case, issues of arbitrability were matters for judicial determination; and (2) that Bigge could not invoke arbitration. View "Bigge Crane & Rigging Co. v. Entergy Ark. Inc." on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the Redland family’s dispute over ranch property that some Redland children (“Children”) claimed that their father (“Father”) agreed to place in a family trust. In the first appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court erred in entering summary judgment, as questions of fact existed on the issues of whether Children’s claims against Father were barred by the statute of frauds and the statute of limitations. On remand, the district court determined that Children’s claims were not barred and ordered that the disputed property, with the exception of property on which Father resided (“residential property”), be immediately transferred to the family trust. With regard to the residential property, the court ordered that the property be transferred to the trust upon Father’s death. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding that the district court (1) did not err in holding that an enforceable agreement existed that required placing the disputed property in the trust; (2) did not err in determining that the statute of limitations did not bar Children’s claims; and (3) erred in its disposition of the residential property. Remanded with directions that the residential property be immediately transferred to the family trust subject to Father’s life estate in the property. View "Redland v. Redland" on Justia Law

Lydig Construction was the general contractor on a large public works project. Martinez Steel was the original steel supply subcontractor on the project. Lydig sued Martinez for additional costs Lydig incurred because Martinez failed to timely supply steel for the project; Lydig, with the public agency's approval, had been required to replace Martinez as the steel supplier. Lydig moved for a right to attach order and a writ of attachment and presented the trial court with its business records and declarations from its employees. Martinez opposed Lydig's motion and presented declarations from one of its employees that set forth its contention Lydig owed it for, among other items, steel Martinez had delivered to the project. Martinez filed a cross-complaint in which it alleged claims that, if successful, would entirely offset Lydig's claims against it. The trial court granted Lydig's motion and issued writs of attachment in the amount of $203,315. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting Martinez's contentions that its cross-complaint, as a matter of law, prevented the trial court from issuing a writ of attachment against it and that Lydig's application for a writ of attachment was not supported by substantial evidence. View "Lydig Constr., Inc. v. Martinez Steel Corp." on Justia Law

CCC, an investment fund incorporated in Guernsey, a British Crown dependency in the English Channel, invested in residential mortgage-backed securities issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Moonmouth purchased CCC shares for $60 million under a 2006 Subscription Agreement, which contained a forum selection clause giving Delaware state courts exclusive jurisdiction over any action and specifying that Delaware law was to govern. In 2008, CCC entered liquidation. A Guernsey court appointed liquidators, who sued Carlyle and others (plaintiffs in this action) in Guernsey for breach of fiduciary duties owed to CCC. Subsequent Transfer Agreements involving the parties released then-existing claims against Carlyle. In 2012, a Dutch law firm representing Moonmouth sent letters alleging that plaintiffs took unacceptable risks in connection with CCC-managed investments and that they would hold plaintiffs liable for damages sustained by investors in connection with CCC. Plaintiffs sought to enforce the Subscription Agreement’s forum selection clause and the Transfer Agreements’ releases. After removal to federal court, the district court remanded to state court. The Third Circuit affirmed. The Subscription Agreement’s forum selection clause pertains to the case, may be enforced against defendants, and may be invoked by plaintiffs; the Transfer Agreement provides an alternative ground supporting remand. View "Carlyle Inv, Mgmt., LLC v. Moonmouth Co., SA" on Justia Law

Phillip Khalil was employed with Front, Inc. for approximately seven years. Khalil later informed Front that he intended to resign to take a position with Eckersley O’Callaghan Structural Design (EOC), one of Front’s competitors. Front, however, terminated Khalil’s employment upon discovering that he worked on several side projects for Front’s competitors, including EOC, in violation of the terms of his employment contract. Front retained Meister Seelig & Fein LLP (MSF), whose attorney sent a letter to Khalil making certain demands. The attorey then sent a letter to EOC making demands nearly identical to those made in the letter to Khalil. Khalil and EOC failed to comply with Front’s demands. Front subsequently commenced an action against Khalil and EOC alleging, inter alia, civil conspiracy and misappropriation of trade secrets. Khalil commenced a third-party action against MSF and its attorney (collectively, MSF), asserting a cause of action for libel per se based upon statements made by MSF in its letter to Khalil. Supreme Court determined that the letter to Khalil was absolutely privileged and dismissed the third-party action against MSF. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because the letters were written in the preliminary stages of an anticipated action, they were properly subject to a qualified privilege. View "Front, Inc. v. Khalil" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a restaurant supply company, leased commercial property from Defendant. The lease provided Plaintiff and the guarantor with the option to purchase the premises during the term of the lease. In a separate provision, the lease required Defendant to perform environmental remediation on the premises. Plaintiff told Defendant that it had elected to exercise the option to purchase the premises but that, before the parties could close on the transaction, Defendant had to fulfill its obligation to complete the environmental remediation. Plaintiff, however, never attempted to tender payment of the purchase price. Plaintiff subsequently filed this action requesting that the trial court order specific performance of the option to purchase provision in the lease. The trial court declined to order specific performance. The Appellate Court affirmed, concluding that Plaintiff had failed to exercise the option to purchase in accordance with its terms. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Plaintiff did tender the purchase price as required, it failed to exercise the option to purchase when the option was available; and (2) the doctrine of frustration of purchase did not apply in this case because Defendant’s lack of environmental remediation did not interfere with the purpose of the lease. View "Howard-Arnold, Inc. v. T.N.T. Realty, Inc." on Justia Law

Sherri Light, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Steven Light, appealed a judgment entered after a bench trial determining GRB Financial Corporation held a valid and enforceable security interest in a ring purchased from Royal Jewelers, Inc., and authorizing GRB Financial to foreclose its security interest in the ring. Royal Jewelers was a jewelry store in Fargo operated by three brothers, Richard, Brent and Gregory Olson. The brothers also owned a separate corporation, GRB Financial, which operated as an indirect lender taking assignments of loans from retailers, including Royal Jewelers. Steven Light was a customer of Royal Jewelers for several years. In September 2009, Steven owed about $40,000 on an open credit account with Royal Jewelers. Steven Light purchased a wedding ring for Sherri on his open credit account (for over $50,000). At some point, Steven issued a $25,500 check to Royal Jewelers, which was applied to the oldest purchases on his account. That check was returned for insufficient funds. Royal Jewelers' monthly statements reflected Steven thereafter paid about $65,000 on his account from October 2009 through December 2010. Sherri stated Steven's payments were applied to the invoice number on the charge receipt for the ring and the ring was paid for by December 2010. In December 2010, Royal Jewelers, with Steven's consent, assigned Steven Light's debt with Royal Jewelers and the security for that debt to GRB Financial. Steven Light and GRB Financial executed a note modification agreement changing repayment terms, extending the maturity date of a prior note modification agreement between the parties and pledging nine additional items as security for modification. The exhibit describing the items was not separately signed by Steven Light, but included the ring on a list of nine items. Steven died in February 2012. Royal Jewelers and GRB Financial sued Sherri, individually and as personal representative of Steven Light's estate, for a determination that GRB Financial had a valid security interest in the ring. After a bench trial, the district court found no stated preference or agreement existed between the Lights and Royal Jewelers that Steven's payments would be first applied to the ring. The court found even if an agreement existed, it was unenforceable under the statute of frauds because it was not in writing. The court determined that in the absence of any agreement or designation about how payments would be applied to Steven's debt, Royal Jewelers was entitled to apply his payments to first reduce the amount owed on his oldest purchases. The court also determined the evidence did not establish the Lights detrimentally relied on Royal Jewelers' monthly account statements about application of payments to Steven Light's account. The court further concluded Steven's gift of the ring to Sherri was subject to Royal Jewelers' security interest in the ring and GRB Financial, as an assignee of Royal Jewelers, had a valid and enforceable security interest in the ring. Sherri Light argued on appeal that the district court clearly erred in determining the Lights did not manifest an intent or desire under N.D.C.C. 9-12-07(1) that Steven's payments on his account would be applied first to pay for the ring. She argued her testimony about Steven's assurances that he made arrangements with Royal Jewelers for application of his payments to the ring and about witnessing Steven's manifestation of that intent when the ring was purchased on October 2, 2009, was corroborated by Royal Jewelers' monthly account statements, indicating Steven's payments were applied to pay for the ring and not for his prior purchases. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not clearly err in finding the Lights did not manifest an intent that payments on an open credit account with Royal Jewelers would be applied first to the purchase price of the ring and in finding the Lights did not detrimentally rely on Royal Jewelers' monthly account statements. Furthermore, the Court concluded the court did not err in determining GRB Financial had a valid and enforceable security interest in the ring. View "Royal Jewelers, Inc. v. Light" on Justia Law