Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Prisons issued a Request for Proposals for the “design-build” construction of a federal correctional institution. The project involved a “cut-to-fill” site, meaning that the ground had to be leveled by excavating materials from one area of the site and using those materials to fill lower areas. Based on information in the solicitation documents and prior experience, BH believed the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Sciences would approve a permit for a one-step-cut-to-fill construction plan and calculated its bid price, $238,175,000, accordingly. The contract provided liquidated damages of $8,000 for each day completion was overdue. The NHDES rejected the application. BH advised the government of the implications of NHDES restrictions, but did not refuse to proceed or request that the government intervene with the NHDES. According to BH, the restrictions were contrary to generally accepted industry practice. Upon completion of cut-to-fill operations, BH submitted a Request for Equitable Adjustment, seeking $7,724,885 for excess costs. The Contracting Officer and the Claims Court rejected the request, finding that the Permits and Responsibilities clause placed the burden of obtaining and complying with state and local permits on BH “without additional expense to the Government;” that BH had not alleged violation of the implied duty of good faith; and that, because the government did not control the NHDES, there was no basis for imposing liability for constructive change. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Bell/Heery v. United States" on Justia Law

Respondents filed a complaint for accounting against Petitioner, their employer, after a dispute over the terms of their employment agreement. In response, Petitioner filed a petition to compel arbitration, asserting that, because Respondents’ claims arose out of their employment agreements, the circuit court was required to compel arbitration under an arbitration clause contained in the employment agreement. The circuit court denied Petitioner’s petition. The intermediate appellate court dismissed Petitioner's appeal, concluding that the denial of Petitioner’s motion to compel arbitration did not constitute a final judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that an order denying a request to compel arbitration filed in an existing action is not a final judgment because the denial of the petition does not put the parties out of court or otherwise terminate the proceedings and does not deny the party requesting arbitration the means of further prosecuting or defending rights and interests in the subject matter of the proceeding. View "Am. Bank Holdings, Inc. v. Kavanaugh" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, property owners, filed an action against Defendant, a bank, alleging eleven counts of state law violations for Defendant’s decision to deny Plaintiffs’ application for a loan modification under the Home Affordable Modification Program and to foreclose on Plaintiffs’ home. The district court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, holding that the district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of the implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Credit Cost Disclosure Act, rescission, negligence, and promissory estoppel. View "MacKenzie v. Flagstar Bank, FSB" on Justia Law

Atlantic, a Virginia corporation, entered into a construction subcontract with J-Crew, a Texas corporation, including a provision that all disputes between the parties would be litigated in Virginia. When a dispute arose, J-Crew filed suit in the Western District of Texas. Atlantic moved to dismiss, arguing that the forum-selection clause rendered venue “wrong” under 28 U. S. C. 406(a) and “improper” under FRCP 12(b)(3). In the alternative, Atlantic moved to transfer the case to Virginia under 28 U. S. C. 1404(a). The district court denied the motions, reasoning that section 1404(a) is the exclusive mechanism for enforcing a forum-selection clause that points to another federal forum; that Atlantic bore the burden of establishing that transfer would be appropriate; and that the court would consider both public- and private-interest factors, only one of which was the forum-selection clause. The Fifth Circuit agreed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. A forum-selection clause may be enforced by a motion to transfer under 1404(a). Section 1406(a) and Rule 12(b)(3) allow dismissal only when venue is “wrong” or “improper.” Whether venue is “wrong” or “improper” depends exclusively on whether the court in which the case was filed satisfies the requirements of 28 U. S. C. 1391. Whether a contract contains a forum-selection clause has no bearing on whether a case falls into a specified district. If a defendant files a 1404(a) motion, a district court should transfer the case unless extraordinary circumstances unrelated to convenience of the parties clearly disfavor a transfer. No such factors were present in this case. The district court improperly placed the burden on Atlantic to prove that transfer to the parties’ contractually preselected forum was appropriate instead of requiring J-Crew, the party acting in violation of the forum-selection clause, to show that public-interest factors overwhelmingly disfavored a transfer and erred in giving weight to the parties’ private interests outside those expressed in the forum-selection clause. Its holding that public interests favored keeping the case in Texas because Texas contract law is more familiar to Texas federal judges than to those in Virginia rested on a mistaken belief that the Virginia federal court would have been required to apply Texas’ choice-of-law rules instead of Virginia’s. View "Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex." on Justia Law

Defendant-sellers obtained a policy from American Family Mutual Insurance Company insuring an apartment building. When preparing for the sale of the building, Defendants signed a real estate condition report stating that they were not aware of the presence of asbestos on the premises. After Plaintiff-buyers purchased the building, their contractor discovered asbestos in the building. Plaintiffs filed an action against Defendants for breach of contract/warranty and negligence in failing to adequately disclose defective conditions. The circuit court held that American Family had no duty to defend or indemnify Defendants because an asbestos exclusion in the American Family policy precluded coverage. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the policy precluded coverage. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the asbestos exclusion in the American Family policy precluded coverage for the losses alleged by Plaintiffs. View "Phillips v. Parmelee" on Justia Law

Defendant, Suzynne D. Cumminngs and S.D. Cummings & Co., PC, appealed a Superior Court order awarding $44,403 to plaintiffs, Robert Audette and his company, H&S Construction Services, LLC (H&S), for breach of contract. Defendants provided various accounting and business services to Audette and his then-partner, Paul Fogarty, including helping them to start their construction business partnership, as well as preparing tax returns for both the business and Audette and Fogarty personally. In 2007, defendants helped Audette and Fogarty dissolve their partnership. One of the final acts defendants worked on for H&S was the placement of a mechanic's lien on a property on which H&S worked: the municipality halted construction on the project when H&S was approximately ninety-five percent complete. The lien placed on the property was for $44,403. Ultimately, plaintiffs’ 120-day statutory lien had not been timely secured or recorded, therefore it had lapsed. Plaintiffs brought suit against defendants in November 2009 for failing to secure the lien. The trial court found for plaintiffs and awarded damages in the amount of $44,403. Finding no error in the Superior Court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Audette & v. Cummings" on Justia Law

The Superior Court dismissed the underlying complaint in this case based solely upon its determination that a 2011 Settlement Agreement barred the Plaintiffs’ claims as constituting an impermissible collateral attack on a 2009 Insurance Agreement. The Superior Court did not address the sufficiency of the Plaintiffs’ allegations supporting their claims. In this appeal, Plaintiffs contended that the Superior Court should not have dismissed their claims because the 2011 Settlement Agreement was reasonably susceptible to the Plaintiffs’ interpretation. Therefore, extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent was necessary to resolve any dispute over the 2011 Settlement Agreement’s terms. After its review, the Supreme Court concluded the Superior Court erred in holding that, as a matter of law, the 2011 Settlement Agreement unambiguously precluded the Plaintiffs from asserting the claims that are at issue in this action. The intent of the parties in negotiating the 2011 Settlement Agreement was a factual question inappropriate for resolution on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. View "Nicholas, et al. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, et al." on Justia Law

Menzies, an air cargo handling business, leased CenterPoint’s 185,280-square-foot warehouse near O’Hare Airport. Another tenant used the building to store airplane parts until 2006. Under the lease, Menzies is responsible for repairing the “floor,” while CenterPoint is responsible for repairing the “foundation.” CenterPoint constructed improvements costing $1.4 million, at Menzies’ request, including increasing the number of dock doors from two to 38 and installing 45,000‐pound dock levelers. When Menzies began moving its operations into the building in November 2007, the six‐inch concrete slab did not exhibit any visible damage. By January 2009, the slab had begun to deteriorate. The damage was not consistent with typical wear and tear. The slab could not support Menzies’ equipment. CenterPoint paid $92,000 for repairs, then stopped doing so and did not submit an insurance claim. The slab is so damaged that it must be replaced, at an estimated cost of $966,000 to $1.23 million. Menzies sued CenterPoint for breach and CenterPoint counterclaimed. The district court held that neither party was entitled to recover because the slab had a “dual nature as both floor and foundation,” but “the damage at issue was related to the slab’s function as a floor.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Aeroground, Inc. v. CenterPoint Props. Trust" on Justia Law

Legacy Resources, Inc. brought several claims against Liberty Pioneer Energy Source, Inc. The district court dismissed Legacy's breach of contract and trade secret claims on summary judgment, determining (1) Legacy violated the securities laws by acting as an unlicensed broker in recruiting investors on behalf of Liberty; and (2) Legacy's securities violations rendered its contract unenforceable under Utah Code 61-1-22(8). The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the undisputed facts sustained the conclusion that Legacy acted as an unlicensed broker, which violation foreclosed the enforcement of one of its contracts; but (2) another of Legacy's contracts was not implicated by the securities violation, and thus the district court erred by granting summary judgment on Legacy's claim under that contract, along with its trade secret claim. View "Legacy Res., Inc. v. Liberty Pioneer Energy Source, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff contracted with a shipper agent to move his household goods and personal property from Nebraska to Florida, but the movers who took possession of Plaintiff's property demanded additional payment before the property was delivered, and the property was never delivered to Florida or returned to Plaintiff. Plaintiff sought coverage under his homeowner's policy for loss of personal property due to theft. Insurer denied coverage, claiming that a theft had not occurred. Plaintiff sued Insurer for breach of contract and bad faith in denying the insurance claim. The district court granted summary judgment for Insurer, concluding that Plaintiff lost his property in a contractual dispute and that there was no showing of criminal intent. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether a theft occurred in this case. Remanded. View "Peterson v. Homesite Indem. Co." on Justia Law