Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Acumen, the underwriter, filed suit against General Security, the reinsurer, for breach of a reinsurance underwriting agreement. The district court granted partial summary judgment for General Security, certified the judgment under Rule 54(b), and closed the case. The court dismissed Acumen's appeal, holding that the district court's entry of the Rule 54(b) order and judgment was erroneous because the district court did not address separate claims for relief. In the absence of a final judgment on a claim or an otherwise reviewable order, the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal.View "Acumen Re Mgmt. Corp. v. General Security Nat. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

A.H. Meyer & Sons, Inc. produced honey and beeswax at a plant in Winfred, South Dakota. Barton Solvents, Inc. sold the heptane to A.H. Meyer that A.H. Meyer used in its beeswax rendering process. The heptane was manufactured by CITGO Petroleum Corporation. In 2009, A.H. Meyer suffered a heptane explosion at its plant. Nationwide Mutual Insurance paid for the damage. Nationwide subsequently filed suit seeking subrogation from Barton Solvents and CITGO on causes of action alleging strict liability, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranties. All theories were premised on the theory that Defendants failed adequately to warn of heptane’s dangers. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that summary judgment was appropriate because no material issues of disputed fact existed with respect to the adequacy of the warnings.View "Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Barton Solvents, Inc." on Justia Law

Ezequiel Castillo and other occupants of his Ford Explorer sued Ford Motor Company for injuries sustained in a roll-over accident, asserting design defects in the Explorer. During the jury’s deliberations, Ford Motor Company agreed to settle the case with one of Castillo’s attorneys for $3 million. Later, in its defense to the settlement, Ford asserted fraudulent inducement, unilateral mistake, and mutual mistake. After hearing all of the evidence, the jury found the settlement agreement invalid due to fraudulent inducement and mutual mistake. The trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment. Castillo appealed. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.View "Ford Motor Co. v. Castillo" on Justia Law

In 1982, Hospital and Doctor entered into a “Memorandum Agreement” in which Hospital agreed to deed certain real property to Doctor. The Memorandum Agreement contained a provision entitled “Option to Repurchase.” In 2012, Hospital filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against Doctor asking the circuit court to declare that the Option to Repurchase was an option contract rather than a right of first refusal. The circuit court entered summary judgment in favor of Hospital, finding that the Option to Repurchase agreement was a “valid” option contract. Doctor appealed, arguing that the validity of the option contract was not an issue before the circuit court, and therefore, the summary judgment order should be reversed. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the ruling contained in the circuit court’s summary judgment order that the option contract was a “valid” option contract, as Hospital’s complaint for declaratory judgment did not seek a determination of the validity of the option contract; and (2) affirmed the order’s ruling that the Option to Repurchase agreement was an option contract.View "Black v. St. Joseph's Hosp. of Buckhannon, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Scottsdale for breach of its insurance contract and tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. At issue was whether plaintiffs can pursue a claim for preforeclosure damage to the property at issue deliberately caused by the purchaser under an insurance policy issued by Scottsdale containing a mortgage coverage provision. The court concluded that plaintiffs' full faith and credit bid at the foreclosure sale under the second deed of trust precluded them from making a claim on the insurance proceeds. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that a defense offer to compromise under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 was reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.View "Najah v. Scottsdale Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Chase, alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. 2605(e); conversion; breach of contract; wrongful attempted foreclosure; and trespass. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Chase on all of plaintiff's claims. The court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment on the breach of contract claims where, although the court recognized that HUD regulations are enforceable terms of the contract, plaintiff failed to put forward any evidence of damages caused by the purported breach of these contract terms or seek any cognizable relief; plaintiff's trespass claim failed because plaintiff was admittedly in default and any visits by Chase's agents to the property at issue were permitted; plaintiff's wrongful attempted foreclosure claim failed where Chase believed it was entitled to foreclose on the property at the time and plaintiff attributed the problems with Chase only to its inability to fully keep track of her payments and communicate her payment status to her; and plaintiff's RESPA claim failed where Chase's response to plaintiff's requests was adequate and there were no damages as a matter of law from an inadequate response. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Chase on all claims.View "Bates v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA" on Justia Law

Attorneys Siegel and Weills represented Hernandez in a successful employment discrimination lawsuit in which attorney fees and costs were awarded, pursuant to Government Code section 12965. The total amount of the fee award, plus accrued interest, was paid directly to Siegel’s law firm by the defendant in the litigation. When the interest was not disbursed to her, Hernandez sued Siegel, Weills, and their law firm, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and intentional torts. The trial court concluded that the attorneys, rather than Hernandez, were entitled to both. Hernandez appeals. The appeals court affirmed, noting language in the fee agreement: you authorize and agree that our outstanding bill for fees and costs must and will be paid from the settlement or judgment in your case, whether or not we are your counsel at the time the matter is finally resolved.View "Hernandez v. Siegel" on Justia Law

Gerdau leased a locomotive from Titan for use in switching at its Knoxville mill. Titan shipped the locomotive in 2008, but it was damaged in transit and sent for repair. It did not reach Gerdau’s plant until 2009. Gerdau rejected it, stating that it needed further repairs. While the locomotive was being repaired, Titan assigned the lease to Leasing, an affiliated business, which then used the lease as security for a loan from Wells Fargo. The loan is nonrecourse: Wells Fargo agreed to look for repayment exclusively from the stream of rentals expected from Gerdau. Leasing made several warranties. Gerdau has never made a payment on the lease. Wells Fargo has taken control of the locomotive and is attempting to sell it. The district court granted summary judgment against Wells Fargo, ruling that Leasing had kept its promises. The court looked to the lease, and then to the Uniform Commercial Code, to see whether the locomotive had been “accepted” when the lease was assigned. Gerdau had an opportunity and the lease required Gerdau to inspect before shipment. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Gerdau did not acknowledge the locomotive’s receipt; Leasing did not live up to its warranties. It must repay Wells Fargo. Titan must perform the guarantees.View "Wells Fargo Equip. Fin., Inc. v. Titan Leasing Inc." on Justia Law

In 2010, Baldwin Mutual Insurance Company (BMIC) filed an "Application for Temporary Restraining Order, Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Complaint for Declaratory Judgment" against 122 individuals who were insured under various insurance policies issued by BMIC. According to the complaint, the insureds, through their legal counsel, had sent a letter requesting BMIC provide copies of the policy file for each of the insureds, and the letter accused BMIC of "bad faith" as to its treatment of the insureds. According to BMIC's complaint, the various insurance policies at issue provided that BMIC or an insured could invoke an appraisal process if BMIC and the insured could not reach an agreement as to the amount of compensation due the insured for a loss covered under the insured's policy. BMIC asked that the restraining order "enjoin[] the [insureds] from engaging in the appraisal process and stay[] the time in which [BMIC] has to identify an appraiser or otherwise participate in said process." Also, BMIC asserted that "it will be caused immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage should it be required to engage in the appraisal process demanded prior to determining whether [the insureds] separately and severally are entitled to invoke the appraisal process." BMIC appealed the Circuit Court's order modifying a previous order granting BMIC injunctive relief. Based on its review of the record, the Supreme Court concluded the circuit court erred by ordering BMIC to engage in the appraisal process before the insureds satisfied their respective post-loss obligations and before BMIC had sufficient information on which it could decide whether it disagreed with the respective claims of the insureds. Accordingly, the Court reversed the circuit court and remanded this matter for further proceedings. View "Baldwin Mutual Insurance Company v. Adair et al. " on Justia Law

Following a two-day trial in May 2013, a Bullock County jury returned a $450,000 verdict in favor of Michael Shepherd on a breach-of-warranty claim he asserted against Barko Hydraulics, LLC. Shepherd purchased a Barko 495ML knuckle boom loader ("the 495ML loader") from G&S Equipment Company in 2008 for use in his logging operation. In November 2010, when the 495ML loader had approximately 4,300 hours on its clock, Shepherd transported it to G&S Equipment for repairs after the hydraulic pumps began making noise. G&S Equipment confirmed that the hydraulic pumps had failed and notified Shepherd that the needed repairs, costing approximately $10,000, would not be covered under the warranty because the warranty period had expired. At Shepherd's request, G&S Equipment contacted Barko, which confirmed that it would not authorize or reimburse G&S Equipment for making the needed repair because of the expiration of the warranty. At that point, Shepherd told G&S Equipment that he could not afford to pay for the repairs to the 495ML loader, nor could he continue to meet his obligation to Wells Fargo (the bank that lent him the purchase money for the loader). He left the loader with G&S Equipment, notified Wells Fargo of its location, and of his intention to make no further payments on it. Wells Fargo subsequently repossessed the loader, sold it, and obtained a $124,184 deficit judgment against Shepherd. Shepherd then sued Barko, G&S Equipment, and Cummins Mid-South, LLC, the manufacturer of certain component parts of the 495ML loader, asserting fraud, negligence and/or wantonness, and multiple breach-of-warranty claims. Shepherd sought both compensatory damages for lost profits and mental anguish and punitive damages. Ultimately, G&S Equipment and Cummins Mid-South were dismissed from the action, and, during the course of the trial, all of Shepherd's claims against Barko except a breach-of-express-warranty claim were withdrawn or dismissed. Barko's subsequent postjudgment motion renewing its previous motion for a judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial was denied by the trial court. Barko then appealed to the Supreme Court. After review, the Court concluded the trial court erred in not granting Barko's postjudgment motions. The case was remanded for entry of an order granting Barko's motion for a new trial. View "Barko Hydraulics, LLC v. Shepherd " on Justia Law