Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Petitioner was injured in a car accident while riding as a passenger in a vehicle driven by a co-employee. The liability limits of the at-fault driver were tendered, and there was no underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage on the vehicle in which he was riding. Therefore, Petitioner submitted a claim for UIM benefits under a Progressive insurance policy, issued to Sarah Severn. At the time of the accident, Petitioner resided with Severn and their child. He described Severn as "his on again off again fiancé." Both Petitioner's and Severn's names appear on the Declarations Page of the Policy under the heading "Drivers and household residents." Under the heading "Additional information," Severn is listed as the "Named insured." Progressive denied UIM coverage to Petitioner under Part III of the Policy. According to the affidavit filed by Progressive's Claims Injury Operations Manager, "[t]he claim was denied because [Petitioner] did not fall within the terms, provisions and conditions of [the Policy] to qualify for benefits under the [UIM] provisions," as Petitioner "was only listed as a 'driver' on the policy and not a named insured, nor was he a resident relative of the named insured." The Supreme Court granted Bell's petition for review of the court of appeals' decision affirming the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Progressive Direct Insurance Company. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Bell v. Progressive Direct Insurance" on Justia Law

In 2004, Robert and Cheri Knorr bought a lot and built a home on Lake Audubon. They owned the lake home debt free. When the national real estate market soured in the late 2000s, the Knorrs had to mortgage the lake property and other property to satisfy loan commitments. They were unable to make the mortgage loan payments on the property, so they turned to family members for assistance. According to the Knorrs, family members agreed to help them by purchasing their homes in Arizona and North Dakota and leasing them to the Knorrs with options to repurchase. The Knorrs' eldest daughter and her husband purchased the Arizona home and leased the property to the Knorrs with an option to repurchase. The Knorrs' daughter, Alonna, and her husband, Jon Norberg, allegedly agreed in late 2010 to also purchase the North Dakota lake home and lease it to the Knorrs with an option to repurchase. A lease agreement containing an option to purchase the lake home was executed by the Knorrs and sent to the Norbergs for their signatures. Alonna signed the agreement and claimed Jon did too, but that document was lost. Jon claimed the lake home was leased to the Knorrs but did not include a buy-back option. After transferring the lake home to the Norbergs, the Knorrs continued to live in the home, made monthly payments to Jon for an amount equal to the Norbergs' mortgage payments, paid all real estate taxes on the property, maintained the property, and paid all utilities and other expenses associated with the property. The Knorrs gave notice to the Norbergs, who were then experiencing marital difficulties, that they were exercising the option to purchase the lake property. Jon refused to recognize the option. Jon appealed the trial court's judgment allowing his in-laws to exercise the option. The Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in holding partial performance of an oral lease agreement with an alleged option to purchase removed the oral agreement from the statute of frauds. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded for the court to consider the Knorrs' alternative theories of recovery based on equitable principles of promissory estoppel and constructive trust. View "Knorr v. Norberg" on Justia Law

Aspen Trails Associations, LLC, d/b/a Windermere Real Estate, entered into two contracts with Empire Office Machines, Inc. for the lease of copy machines. Windermere and Empire later entered into a revised agreement that was signed by Kevin Demaray on behalf of Windermere. The signature line, however, did not specify that Demaray was signing as an agent of Aspen. Aspen failed to make the payments as agreed, and Empire repossessed the two copiers. Empire subsequently commenced an action for breach of contract against Aspen, Demaray personally, and others. The district court granted Demaray’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Empire had no contract with Demaray personally. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly granted summary judgment in Demaray’s favor, where, in light of the longstanding business relationship between Empire and Aspen d/b/a Windermere, Empire had reason to know that Aspen was Demaray’s principal. View "Empire Office Machines, Inc. v. Demaray" on Justia Law

PAMC appealed the district court's affirmance of the Secretary's decision denying PAMC its full Medicare Annual Payment Updated for the fiscal year 2009. PAMC claimed that the Department acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it refused to excuse PAMC's late filing of the required Reporting Hospital Quality Data for Annual Payment Updated (RHQDAPU) program data by the admittedly applicable deadline. The court concluded that PAMC neither pointed to any contrary or antithetical decisions by the Department under similar circumstances, nor otherwise demonstrated that the Board acted arbitrary or capriciously when it denied equitable relief. The court rejected PAMC's argument that the Board should have used the contract doctrine of substantial performance to excuse PAMC's failure to submit data at the proper time. The court did not view the Board's adherence to the policy of strict compliance with a deadline as arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "PAMC, LTD. v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit in Mississippi state court against defendants seeking damages and declarative injunctive relief. Plaintiffs asserted two claims: first, common-law trade-secret misappropriate and intentional interference with business relations; and second, violation of state law, which protects a patient's right to use any pharmacy of his choosing. After removing plaintiffs' suit to federal court, defendants moved to compel plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims under the arbitration contracts to which all or most defendants were not signatories under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 3-4. The court concluded that the relevant Arizona law, made controlling by the Provider Agreement's choice-of-law clause, supported the non-signatory defendants' motion to enforce the agreement to arbitrate against plaintiffs based on state-law equitable estoppel doctrine. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment compelling arbitration. The court recognized that the court's prior decisions applying federal common law, rather than state contract law, to decide such questions have been modified to conform with the Supreme Court's holding in Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle. View "Crawford Professional Drugs, et al. v. CVS Caremark Corp., et al." on Justia Law

Michael Queen, an NBC Employee, claimed an entitlement to a portion of Ed Schultz's income from the "The Ed Show" on MSNBC based on their alleged agreement to co-develop a show. Queen sued Schultz in district court, and Schultz counterclaimed against Queen for fraud, slander, and liable. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled that neither Queen nor Schultz was liable to the other for anything. Queen appealed. The court concluded that the district court correctly granted summary judgment to Schultz on Queen's claim that he, Max Schindler, and Schultz entered into an enforceable contract to divide the profits from a potential television show 50/25/25. However, the court concluded that there existed a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Queen and Schultz formed a partnership to develop a television show and, if so, whether Schultz was liable to Queen for breach of partnership duties. Therefore, the court reversed that portion of the district court's judgment and remanded to enable Queen to present his partnership theory to a jury. View "Queen v. Schultz" on Justia Law

In 2011, plaintiffs filed suit against the Bank for breach of contract, negligence, and conversion after plaintiffs gave physical possession of gold coins and proof sets to a predecessor of the Bank, as collateral to secure a line of credit in the 1980's, and the Bank stated conclusively in 2009 that it no longer possessed the coins. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Bank, holding that the suit was time-barred by Missouri's ten-year statute of limitations. Whether plaintiffs could or could not have continued to borrow on the allegedly ongoing line of credit did not change the fact that reasonable persons had to have known, prior to January 2001, that their creditor's non-responsiveness and inability to locate the collateral suggested that an injury and substantial damages may have occurred. View "Mahanna, et al. v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Assoc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the Bank seeking to void a mortgage foreclosure sale of their home. Plaintiffs alleged that the Bank represented orally that it would postpone the foreclosure sale, but then proceeded to foreclose anyway. The court concluded that plaintiffs' claim of negligent misrepresentation was barred by the Minnesota Credit Agreement Status, Minn. Stat. 513.33, where any party asserting the existence of a credit agreement must comply with the writing and signature requirements of section 513.33. The court concluded that the complaint alleged a claim of promissory estoppel, rather than equitable estoppel, and was barred by the Minnesota Credit Agreement Statute. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of the Bank's motion to dismiss. View "Bracewell, et al. v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Assoc." on Justia Law

In 2007, Plaintiff was hired as a salesperson at Planet Group, Inc. As part of his employment, Plaintiff signed a Sales Compensation Plan, which set out the requirements for when a commission was earned and how it would be paid. In 2009, Plaintiff’s employment was terminated. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against Planet Group, alleging that he was owed commissions on four of the projects he was working on that were ongoing at the time of his termination. The district court granted partial summary judgment to Planet Group on three of the projects, finding that the Compensation Plan required a signed contract prior to a commission’s being paid. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-1229(4) does not permit an employer and an employee to contractually define when a commission becomes payable as “wages,” and therefore, he was entitled to commissions for two of the three projects at issue. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the 2007 legislative amendments to section 48-1229(4) allow an employer and employee to contractually define when a commission becomes payable; and (2) therefore, the commissions for the two projects were not payable to Plaintiff under the Compensation Plan. View "Coffey v. Planet Group, Inc." on Justia Law

The issue this case presented to the Supreme Court started from an agreement between Respondents, the University of South Carolina and the University Gamecock Club, and Appellant George M. Lee, III. In exchange for Appellant purchasing a $100,000 life insurance policy and naming the University the sole, irrevocable beneficiary of the policy, Appellant was given the "opportunity to purchase tickets" for his lifetime to University football and basketball games. Years later, the University instituted a program that required all Gamecock Club members, including Appellant, to pay a seat license fee as a prerequisite for purchasing season tickets. Believing that the University could not require him to pay additional consideration for the opportunity to purchase tickets without violating the agreement, Appellant brought a declaratory judgment action. The trial court entered judgment for the University and the Gamecock Club, finding that Appellant was not deprived of the opportunity to purchase season tickets when the University instituted the seat license fees. The Supreme Court reversed: the Agreement unambiguously prohibited the University from requiring Lee to pay the seat license fee as a prerequisite for the opportunity to purchase tickets pursuant to the Agreement. View "Lee v. University of South Carolina" on Justia Law