Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Doe Run commenced a declaratory action seeking to enforce Lexington's contractual duty to defend Doe Run per its Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies in two underlying lawsuits (the Briley Lawsuit and the McSpadden Lawsuit). These underlying lawsuits sought damages arising out of Doe Run's operation of a five-hundred-acre waste pile (Leadwood Pile). The court concluded that the pollution exclusions in the CGL policies precluded a duty to defend Doe Run in the Briley Lawsuit. The court concluded, however, that the McSpadden Lawsuit included allegations and claims that were not unambiguously barred from coverage by the pollution exclusions in the policies. The McSpadden Lawsuit alleged that the distribution of toxic materials harmed plaintiffs, without specifying how that harm occurred. The McSpadden complaint also alleged that Doe Run caused bodily injury or property damage when it left the Leadwood Pile open and available for use by the public without posting warning signs. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Doe Run Resources Corp. v. Lexington Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Doe Run commenced a declaratory judgment action seeking to enforce Lexington's contractual duty to defend Doe Run per its Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies in an underlying lawsuit. The underlying lawsuit alleged environmental property damage resulting from Doe Run's mine and mill operations. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that Lexington had no duty to defend because the policies' absolute pollution exclusions unambiguously barred coverage of all claims asserted in the underlying lawsuit. View "Doe Run Resources Corp. v. Lexington Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff challenged the court's holding in Grochowski v. Phoenix Construction, which held that the Davis-Bacon Act, 40 U.S.C. 3141-3148, barred third-party private contract actions, brought under state law, aimed at enforcing the Act's prevailing wage schedules. The court concluded that Grochowski was the controlling law of this Circuit and foreclosed plaintiff's third-party beneficiary contract claim for failure to pay prevailing wages; the district court did not err in setting aside the jury's award of punitive damages under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50; the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial as to damages on his discrimination claim; and, therefore, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Carrion v. Agfa Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant was a political subdivision for purposes of the governmental-immunity provisions of Ohio Rev. Code 2744. Appellee sued Appellant, asserting several claims. Appellant filed a motion for partial summary judgment, claiming political-subdivision immunity. Appellant then unsuccessfully sought to file an amended answer raising political-subdivision immunity as an affirmative offense. Thereafter, the trial court granted summary judgment to Appellant on two of Appellee's claims. After Appellant appealed the trial court's denial of leave to file an amended answer, the case proceeded to trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellee on two of its remaining claims. Appellant filed a second appeal from the judgment. While Appellant's appeals were pending, the Supreme Court held that Appellant's first appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction to proceed with a trial of any claim subject to the political-subdivision immunity defense. The court of appeals subsequently dismissed Appellant's appeals for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court's denial of Appellant's motion for leave to file an amended answer to raise the affirmative defense of political-subdivision immunity precluded Appellant from enjoying the benefits of the alleged immunity; and (2) the court of appeals therefore possessed jurisdiction to determine Appellant's appeal of that order. View "Supportive Solutions, LLC v. Elec. Classroom of Tomorrow" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court centered on the grant of summary judgment in favor of Respondent Action Concrete Contractors, Inc. in a mechanic's lien foreclosure action. Owners Elvira Chappelear, Craig Chappelear, Premier Southern Homes, LLC, Henry G. Beal, Jr. and First Citizens Bank and Trust Co., Inc. argued on appeal there were material issues of fact and that the grant of summary judgment was inappropriate. The Supreme Court disagreed after its review of the trial court record and affirmed. View "Action Concrete v. Chappelear" on Justia Law

Petitioner Shannon Hutchinson was the beneficiary of a mortgage life insurance policy. She sued Liberty Life Insurance Company after it denied her benefits under a policy exclusion for injury resulting from the insured's being intoxicated. The insured-decedent was under the influence of methamphetamine at the time of his accidental death. The circuit court granted Petitioner summary judgment, finding methamphetamine was not a narcotic under the policy. The appellate court reversed, finding the plain meaning of "narcotic" was enough to qualify as a narcotic. Petitioner petitioned the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, finding the appellate court ready the policy exclusion to deny coverage for injuries from unlawful use of intoxicating substances: "this reading rewrites rather than interprets the insurance policy's exclusionary clause." View "Hutchinson v. Liberty Life Insurance" on Justia Law

Alea London Limited (insurer) appealed a circuit court's denial of its motion to set aside an order of a special referee that granted Respondent Elisa Narruhn an assignment of rights in supplemental proceedings held in conjunction with another lawsuit. The underlying suit was filed after Respondent was shot while attending a nightclub in Myrtle Beach. A special referee was appointed to conduct supplemental proceedings to determine whether the club had any assets to satisfy Respondent's judgment. The referee granted Respondent an assignment of any and all rights, including any claims, the club might have had against the Insurer (which issued the club a liability insurance policy). Respondent subsequently sued the Insurer seeking damages for failing to pay or defend a claim. Upon review, the Supreme Court modified the circuit court's order, but affirmed. View "Narruhn v. Alea London Limited" on Justia Law

Tenant-Defendant Bhole, Inc. terminated its commercial lease before the lease expired. Before the end of the lease, Plaintiff-landlord Shore Investments, Inc. filed suit to recover the entire unpaid rent for the balance of the term. The lease agreement did not contain an acceleration clause. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court found that though defendants breached the lease, the trial court erred by not considering the lease did not have an acceleration clause. The trial court's award of damages and attorney's fees was inappropriate, and its decision regarding the landlord's claim for tortious interference with the lease (with a punitive damages award) was also made in error. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Bhole, Inc., at al. v. Shore Investments, Inc." on Justia Law

In a prior suit, Appellees obtained a state court judgment against Appellant, Boston Property Exchange Transfer Company (BPE), for Defendant's financial misconduct. At the time of that judgment, BPE was about to begin arbitration of claims against PaineWebber, which it claimed was responsible for its financial troubles. Appellees successfully sought to compel assignment of BPE's legal claims to them to help satisfy their judgment against BPE. In this federal action, BPE claimed damages from the appellee assignees and their lawyers for allegedly mishandling the PaineWebber arbitration. The district court dismissed all of BPE's claims. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) summary judgment for Appellees was proper on BPE's tort claims because BPE failed to prove that Appellees cause it to suffer damages; and (2) summary judgment was properly granted for Appellees on their breach of contract claim, as the assignment order in this case was not a contract. View "Boston Prop. Exch. Transfer Co. v. Iantosca" on Justia Law

Gaia and State Street were bound by a mezzanine loan agreement with Lehman Brothers to help finance the construction of a residential building in Manhattan. At issue on appeal was whether equitable estoppel, principles of good faith and fair dealing, or general principles of equity prevented State Street from keeping the Accrued Interest. The court concluded that Gaia could not rely on equitable estoppel to recover the Accrued Interest because Gaia did not demonstrate an omission or misrepresentation by State Street on which Gaia reasonably relied to its substantial detriment; State Street was entitled to act in its own self-interest and require payment of the Accrued Interest, even if such action lessened Gaia's anticipated profits, because State Street acted consistently with the contract and did not violate a presumed obligation or Gaia's reasonable expectations; State Street's actions were not taken in bad faith; State Street did not unlawfully demand payment of the Accrued Interest and it was not liable for the Doral damages; and the Professional Fee provision applied in this action and State Street was entitled to Professional Fees incurred as a result of this litigation. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Gaia House Mezz LLC v. State St. Bank & Trust Co." on Justia Law