Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff Ashley Hoffman was insured under an automobile insurance policy issued by defendant Travelers Indemnity Company of America. Following an automobile accident, plaintiff received medical treatment at Baton Rouge General Medical Center and sought reimbursement for the hospital bill under her Travelers' medical payments coverage. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the Travelers’ policy, which provided for payment of medical expenses "incurred," allowed plaintiff to be reimbursed for the full, nondiscounted amount of the hospital bill when the charges were contractually reduced pursuant to the hospital’s agreement with plaintiff's health insurer, AETNA Insurance Company. The Court answered that question in the negative and reversed the rulings of the lower courts. View "Hoffman v. Travelers Indemnity Company of America" on Justia Law

Tharaldson Ethanol Plant I, LLC and Tharaldson Financial Group, Inc. appealed a judgment and amended judgment ordering Tharaldson Financial to pay VEI Global, Inc., $1,150,000 plus interest, and an order granting certification under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b). VEI provided design and construction management services for an ethanol plant owned and operated by Tharaldson Ethanol. In 2009, Tharaldson Ethanol and VEI reached a settlement on disputed fees, agreeing Tharaldson Ethanol would pay VEI $1,350,000 for all work VEI performed through February 28, 2009. The agreement also provided Tharaldson Financial would enter into a $1,350,000 promissory note payable to VEI, and a copy of the note was attached and incorporated into the agreement. Tharaldson Ethanol and Tharaldson Financial sued VEI, claiming VEI negligently designed and constructed the ethanol plant. The complaint sought damages for breach of warranty, breach of contract, and negligence claims; and sought a declaratory judgment that Tharaldson Ethanol and Tharaldson Financial did not owe VEI anything under the settlement agreement or promissory note because of damages VEI caused by its breaches of contract and warranty and other wrongful acts. VEI answered and counterclaimed, including a breach of contract claim against Tharaldson Financial for failing to make payments on the promissory note. The district court ultimately granted VEI's motion for partial summary judgment, finding there were no genuine issues of material fact and VEI was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and ordered VEI was entitled to judgment against Tharaldson Financial in the amount of $1,150,000, with interest. The Supreme Court dismissed Tharaldson Ethanol and Tharaldson Financial's appeal, holding that "[c]ertification under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) must be reserved for 'the unusual case in which the costs and risks of multiplying the number of proceedings and of overcrowding the appellate docket are outbalanced by pressing needs of the litigants for an early and separate judgment as to some claims or parties.'" The Court concluded this case did not present "out-of-the-ordinary circumstances" or the "infrequent harsh case" warranting its immediate review. Consequently, the Court did not reach the merits of Tharaldson Ethanol and Tharaldson Financial's appeal. View "Tharaldson Ethanol Plant I, LLC v. VEI Global, Inc." on Justia Law

The Providers supply outpatient cardiac telemetry (OCT) services, used by doctors to monitor cardiac arrhythmias. The device differs from conventional technology in that it transmits electrocardiographic (EKG) data in real time to certified technicians, who forward the data to a physician. OCT is approved by the FDA, and has long been covered by Medicare and commercial insurers. CIGNA administers employer sponsored health benefit plans. CIGNA pays its in-network providers directly for the services rendered to patients. In 2007, the Providers joined CIGNA’s network by Agreements that set the reimbursement rate and define “Covered Services.” In 2012, CIGNA issued a statement that it would no longer cover OCT “for any indication because it is considered experimental, investigational or unproven.” The 2012 Policy acknowledged that this new position would be trumped by any conflicting language in the coverage policies themselves. In arriving at the new policy, CIGNA relied on the same medical literature it had previously relied upon in concluding that OCT should be covered. The Providers claim that CIGNA indicated that its motive was financial, but refused to reconsider the 2012 Policy. The district court found that the Providers’ claims fell within the arbitration clause of the Agreement. The Third Circuit vacated. The clause at issue is limited in scope to disputes “regarding the performance or interpretation of the Agreement” and the claims at issue do not relate to the performance or interpretation of the Agreement. View "Cardionet Inc v. Cigna Health Corp." on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from a dispute over equipment owned by Tri-State Concrete Contracting, an unincorporated sole proprietorship. Abel Ramirez worked at Tri-State, and when its proprietor, DuWayne Juhnke, died. Ramirez entered an agreement with Juhnke's wife to continue operating Tri-State and to make payments to purchase Tri-State and its equipment. After making some payments, Ramirez stopped, opened Abel & Sons Concrete, LLC, and started doing Tri-State's jobs with Tri-State's equipment without paying for the use of that equipment. In response, Mrs. Juhnke and the administrator of Mr. Juhnke's estate ("Appellees") sued Ramirez and Abel & Sons ("Appellants") along with Dollar Concrete Construction Company, the company that was storing the equipment and allegedly letting Appellants use it without Appellees' permission. Appellees and Dollar filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court denied both motions for summary judgment, explaining that it was undisputed that Dollar did not own the equipment and that Appellees did not have access to it, but there was a genuine factual dispute as to the ownership of the equipment and whether Dollar had refused Appellees' demand for its return. The trial court's order that although Appellees and Dollar had asked at a hearing for time to resolve how Dollar would relinquish the equipment, they had not presented a consent order, so the court sua sponte required Dollar to place the equipment outside its locked storage yard within 30 days and after giving seven days' notice to Appellants and Appellees to allow them to "arrange to retrieve and store same pending determination as to ownership." The order further directed Appellants and Appellees not to "transfer, damage, or use the property pending determination as to ownership" and to equally share the costs of moving and storage. The Supreme Court concluded that those portions of the order comprised, in substance, an interlocutory injunction, and Appellants filed this appeal to challenge the injunction against them on the ground that they were not given notice before the court imposed it. Because Appellants did not have proper notice of the interlocutory injunction, the trial court abused its discretion in imposing it against them, and the portion of the court's order issuing equitable relief binding Appellants was vacated. View "Abel & Sons Concrete, LLC v. Juhnke" on Justia Law

Dozens of suits were filed against Irving Oil Limited (IOL) alleging environmental contamination by methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) occurring from 1979 to the present. At the time of this opinion, all of the MTBE suits against IOL had been settled. In 2009, IOL filed a complaint asking the superior court to declare that ACE INA Insurance (ACE) had a duty to defend and indemnify in the MTBE suits. The superior court granted IOL’s motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, concluding that it could not declare that IOL was entitled a judgment on the duty-to-defend count as a matter of law. IOL appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed IOL’s appeal and ACE’s cross-appeal, holding that although a decision that an insurer does not have a duty to defend its insured is ordinarily immediately appealable under the death knell exception to the final judgment rule, the exception did not apply in this case because there were no MTBE cases pending against IOL. View "Irving Oil Ltd. et al. v. ACE INA Ins." on Justia Law

Dennis Hagenow was injured in an automobile accident with Betty Schmidt. Hagenow and his wife (Plaintiffs) filed an uninsured motorist claim with American Family Mutual Insurance Company. American Family denied the claim, determining that Schmidt’s vehicle was not an uninsured motor vehicle under Plaintiffs’ policy. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a breach of contract action against American Family. American Family moved for summary judgment, arguing (1) because Schmidt had automobile insurance at the time of the collision, she was not an uninsured motorist (UM) under the policy; and (2) Plaintiffs were not “legally entitled to recover” under the policy because a jury in Plaintiffs’ underlying action against Schmidt found Schmidt not liable for Plaintiffs’ damages. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Plaintiffs were not “legally entitled to recover” under Iowa law or their UM policy; and (2) Schmidt’s vehicle was not an uninsured motor vehicle under the terms of Plaintiffs’ UM provision. Remanded. View "Hagenow v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Farm Credit had a security interest in corn delivered to Cargill and filed suit against Cargill in replevin for the corn. The district court concluded that Farm Credit's security interest under the Food Security Act (FSA) of 1985, 7 U.S.C. 1631(e), entitled it to proceeds from the corn delivered to Cargill. The court concluded that Cargill did not dispute that Farm Credit complied with the FSA. To the extent that the U.C.C. governs priority disputes as a foundation for the FSA, Cargill's argument failed because U.C.C. 9-404 does not apply in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Farm Credit. View "Farm Credit Serv. v. Cargill, Inc." on Justia Law

Allen Kraft and Jim Kost operated a custom combining partnership. They ceased doing business as a partnership in early 2003, but continued to share equipment and work in 2003 and 2004. In 2008, Kost sued Kraft to formally dissolve the partnership. Kraft counterclaimed for breach of contract, alleging that after the partnership was terminated in 2003, Kost had orally agreed to lease some of Kraft's combining equipment in 2003 and 2004. Kraft alleged Kost owed $150,000 under the oral lease. Kraft also claimed that the parties had entered into an oral agreement for Kraft to do certain work for Kost in 2005, and that Kost owed him $10,000 for the work. Kraft appealed the a district court judgment dissolving the partnership and dismissing his counterclaim seeking damages for breach of an oral agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the equitable theories of unjust enrichment or quantum meruit and did not abuse its discretion in granting a motion in limine precluding evidence or argument of unjust enrichment or quantum meruit. View "Kost v. Kraft" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, authors of romance novels, filed a putative class action against Harlequin Enterprises and its subsidiaries contending that the Harlequin entities breached agreements with them and others by paying them artificially low royalties on the sale of digitized versions of their books. The district court dismissed under Ruled 12(b)(6). Based on the court's review of the Publishing Agreements, the court concluded that plaintiffs' first through third claims were not viable because the Publishing Agreements unambiguously provided that Harlequin subsidiaries HEBV or HBSA was the "Publisher" and Harlequin Enterprises was a "Related Licensee" for purposes of computing royalty payments. The court held that the fourth claim alleged sufficient facts to plead a breach of the Publishing Agreements on the theory that defendants calculated their e-book royalties based on an unreasonable license fee. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Keiler, et al. v. Harlequin Enterprises LTD et al. " on Justia Law

In 2003, Plaintiffs loaned Utility Systems, Inc. (“USI”), which provided wastewater disposal services to the Woods on Herring Creek community, almost $250,000 to meet the costs of managing and improving the wastewater treatment system (“System”). Plaintiffs were not repaid by USI. In 2013, Plaintiffs filed this action seeking to recover the loaned funds under the doctrines of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs named as defendants Woods on Herring Creek Homeowners Association, which took over the System in 2004, and Sussex County, to whom the Association transferred the system in 2008. The Court of Chancery granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that Plaintiffs’ action was barred by laches. View "Carbaugh v. Woods on Herring Creek Homeowners Ass'n" on Justia Law