Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

A county-owned police patrol vehicle was damaged in a single-car collision while Respondent, a county police officer, operated the vehicle under the influence of alcohol. The County, a self-insured entity, filed a complaint against Respondent seeking to recover the cost of repairs to the vehicle. The district court ruled that the County could recover damages against Respondent based on an exclusion in the self-insurance guarantee purportedly excluding or disclaiming all insurance coverage on the basis that Respondent operated his vehicle under the influence of alcohol. The circuit court reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Maryland's compulsory motor vehicle insurance scheme does not permit a self-insurer such as the County to disclaim or exclude insurance coverage in a self-insurance guarantee where an individual causes a collision while driving under the influence of alcohol; and (2) the exclusion in the guarantee in this case was invalid because it violated the state compulsory motor vehicle insurance scheme, was not expressly authorized by the General Assembly, and was against public policy. View "Montgomery Co. v. Distel" on Justia Law

Shellie and Robert Symonds executed a lease agreement granting AT&T Mobility the right to use a portion of their property to build a wireless communication tower. The town planning board approved AT&T's application seeking approval for the project. William Horton and others appealed, and the town zoning board of appeals (ZBA) upheld the planning board's approval of AT&T's application. Horton appealed, arguing that the lease agreement created a new lot that did not meet the minimum space and setback requirements of the town's zoning ordinances. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the lease did not create a new lot and that the setback requirements of the relevant zoning ordinance were satisfied. View "Horton v. Town of Casco" on Justia Law

After entering a construction contract with Appellants, Appellee filed a breach of contract and unjust enrichment action against Appellants. Appellants counterclaimed for breach of contract. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court's judgment against Appellants with respect to Appellee's claims under the Prime Contract Change Order (PCCO) Nos. 1 and 2; (2) reversed the district court's order dismissing Appellee's claims relating to PCCO Nos. 3 and 4; and (3) affirmed the district court's dismissal of Appellants' counterclaims. Following remand, the district court (1) granted Appellee's motion to dismiss its remaining claims; and (2) dismissed all counterclaims of Appellants, declaring them to be moot. Appellants appealed, contending that the district court erred in dismissing their counterclaims and denying their request for costs and attorney's fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that they district court did not abuse its discretion by (1) dismissing Appellant's counterclaims, as Appellee's dismissal of its claims rendered any contractual defense to the claims moot; and (2) declining to award costs and attorneys fees to Appellants, as Appellants could not be correctly classified as the prevailing party. View "Sterrett Props., LLC v. Big-D Signature Corp." on Justia Law

Respondent brought this action against Appellant, seeking to recover payment for industrial equipment it fabricated for Appellant. Appellant counterclaimed for breach of contract. The district court entered judgment in favor of Respondent. Appellant filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, arguing that the district court erred in granting Respondent's motion for a protective order to preclude the depositions of two out-of-state witnesses from going forward shortly before trial. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court abused its discretion by granting Respondent's motion for a protective order because it applied the wrong legal standard in this case; (2) Respondent did not demonstrate good cause to preclude Appellant's depositions of the out-of-state witnesses; and (3) because Appellant was prejudiced by the district court's error, a new trial was warranted. View "TC/Am. Monorail, Inc. v. Custom Conveyor Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sold fine art and antiques at public auctions. Plaintiff permitted absentee bidding in addition to traditional in-person bidding. In 2008, Defendant submitted a signed absentee bidder form and submitted a $400,000 bid on a certain item. Defendant successfully outbid a competing bidder, and the chief clerk recorded the winning bid on Plaintiff's clerking sheet. After Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff for the item, Plaintiff commenced this action for breach of contract, seeking damages, including the bid price and the buyer's premium. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. At issue in this case was whether the clerking sheet and related bidding documents satisfied the Statute of Frauds. Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Plaintiff on liability. The Appellate Division reversed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Plaintiff complied with the statutory requirement of a writing in support of its breach of contract claim, thus establishing an enforceable agreement. View "William J. Jenack Estate Appraisers & Auctioneers, Inc. v. Rabizadeh" on Justia Law

The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) approved a contract for the purchase of substitute natural gas and directed the procedure for resolving future related disputes. The court of appeals reversed the IURC's approval of the contract because a definition term in the contract deviated from the required statutory definition. The parties to the contract subsequently amended the contract to delete the language that the court of appeals found improper. The Supreme Court vacated the reversal of the IURC's order, held that the amended contract that corrected the definitional error rendered the definitional issue moot, and summarily affirmed the court of appeals as to all other claims. View "Ind. Gas Co., Inc. v. Ind. Fin. Auth." on Justia Law

When Plaintiff retained a Maine law firm to represent him in a legal action, he signed an attorney-client engagement letter that contained an arbitration provision. Plaintiff later sued the law firm and individual defendants (collectively, Defendants) for malpractice and violations of Maine's Unfair Trade Practices Act. Defendants moved to compel arbitration and dismiss the action. The district court granted the motion under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the district court erred in enforcing the arbitration clause. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting the motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the action, as (1) Maine professional responsibility law for attorneys permits arbitration of legal malpractice claims so long as there is no prospective limitation on the law firm's liability; and (2) Maine law, like the FAA, is not hostile to the use of the arbitration forum, and Maine would enforce the arbitration of malpractice claims provision in this case. View "Bezio v. Draeger" on Justia Law

After plaintiff purchased a background check and report from Intelius on the Internet, plaintiff discovered that Adaptive, a separate company from Intelius, had been charging his credit card each month for a Family Safety Report. Plaintiff and others filed suit against Intelius in state court. Intelius then filed a third-party complaint against Adaptive. Adaptive filed a motion to compel arbitration of both Intelius's and plaintiff's claims. The court held that plaintiff did not enter into a contract with Adaptive to purchase the Family Safety Report, and did not enter into a contract with Adaptive to arbitrate. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to compel. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Lee v. Intelius Inc." on Justia Law

Phusion manufactures and distributes an alcoholic beverage called “Four Loko.” Its original formula contained energy stimulants, such as caffeine, guarana, taurine, and wormwood. Phusion purchased a commercial general liability insurance policy and a umbrella policy from members of the Liberty Mutual Group. The policies include identical provisions, excluding coverage for bodily injury or property damage when the insured may be held liable by reason of causing or contributing to intoxication. Plaintiffs sued Phusion in separate state court actions, alleging injuries caused by consumption of Four Loko. Two cases involved traffic accidents, one involved a shooting, another involved paranoid behavior resulting in accidental death, and a fifth claim involved a death from heart trouble. Phusion notified Liberty, which sought a declaratory judgment regarding the scope of coverage. The district court examined the underlying cases in the context of comparable automobile exclusions and ruled that four of the five cases fell within the Liquor Liability Exclusion. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Liquor Liability Exclusions in the policies are unambiguous and apply to Phusion. The allegations of simple negligence raised by the plaintiffs in the underlying complaints are not sufficiently independent from the allegations that Phusion caused or contributed to the intoxication of any person. View "Netherlands Ins.. Co. v. Phusion Projects, Inc." on Justia Law

The sellers own an island off St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, and a launch providing access to the island from St. Thomas. In 2004, the buyers signed land contracts and an escrow agreement to purchase the properties for $21 million and $2.5 million, respectively. Premier Title served as the escrow agent and was party to the escrow agreement. Unbeknownst to the buyers, D’Amour, the sellers’ attorney-in-fact, owned Premier. The contract required an initial deposit of $1 million. The buyers paid an additional $500,000 nonrefundable deposit to extend the closing date. The sellers were to deliver “Clear and Marketable” title and assignments of all permits, submerged land leases and other licenses necessary for occupancy of the dock and other improvements. At the scheduled closing, it was determined that dock permits had expired and that there were several exceptions to title. The sellers refused to refund the deposits. The buyers appealed district court orders, rejecting certain claims; the sellers cross-appealed other orders. D’Amour appealed some holdings. The Third Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, concluding that conclude that the buyers are entitled to recover the $1.5 million deposit in restitution, and that the tort claims are barred by the gist of the action doctrine. View "Addie v. Kjaer" on Justia Law