Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Motor Carriers filed suit against defendants under 49 U.S.C. 13706(b) of the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act. At issue was whether, absent a federal tariff, federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over a motor carrier's breach of contract claim against a shipper for unpaid freight charges. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal under the Act, finding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded with instructions to dismiss. View "Gaines Motor Lines, Inc. v. Klaussner Furniture Ind." on Justia Law

Thomas Warner filed a complaint against Robert and Rebecca Hanke for conversion and negligence after Robert Hanke asserted ownership over some personal property Warner was storing on the Hanke's property. At the time the action was filed, Robert and Rebecca Hankes maintained home insurance coverage from a subsidiary of Horace Mann Insurance Company. The Hankes filed a claim with Horace Mann to request a defense against Warner's suit. Horace Mann filed a declaratory judgment action requesting a determination whether the insurance policy required Horace Mann to defend the Hankes. The district court concluded that Horace Mann did not owe coverage to the Hankes for the Warner dispute. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding that the district court (1) properly determined that the Hankes' insurance policy failed to cover the Warner dispute; (2) correctly determined that Horace Mann's decisions to provide a defense and to pay the settlement of Warner's claims nevertheless allowed Horace Mann to pursue reimbursement for the Hankes' share of the settlement; and (3) abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to Horace Mann. View "Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Hanke" on Justia Law

Defendants, an attorney and a law firm, structured a tax-deferred exchange for Plaintiffs, a husband and wife and the cattle ranch they owned. It was later determined that the exchange did not qualify for deferred tax treatment under 26 U.S.C. 1031, resulting in significant tax liability for Plaintiffs. Defendants filed an action against Defendants for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and misrepresentation. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants on all claims on grounds that Plaintiffs' claims were time barred. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Plaintiffs' tort claims were timely filed, and the issue of whether Plaintiffs' timely filed their misrepresentation claim was a question of material fact to be resolved by a jury; (2) Plaintiffs properly stated a claim for breach of contract and the claim was not time barred; and (3) the district court erred in granting Defendants a protection order to prevent discovery of alleged work product and attorney-client communications, as further analysis and fact finding were necessary to determine which documents were discoverable and which qualified for work product or attorney-client protection. Remanded. View "Draggin' Y Cattle Co., Inc. v. Addink" on Justia Law

After purchasing a car from Defendant, a car dealership, Plaintiff discovered that the car had extensive problems. Plaintiff sued Defendant, alleging that advertising the car as a "Sporty Car at a Great Value Price" violated the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act and that the salesperson's representation to her that the car would "just need a tune-up" was fraudulent. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the trial court correctly found that Defendant's advertisement was classic puffery, which was fatal to Plaintiff's deception claims; but (2) Plaintiff established an issue of material fact as to her fraud claim based on the salesperson's statements. Remanded. View "Kesling v. Hubler Nissan, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Enerlex, Inc. offered to purchase plaintiffs'-appellees' mineral interest. At the time, plaintiffs did not know that their Seminole County mineral interests were included in a pooling order or that proceeds had accrued under the pooling order. Defendant admitted it knew about the pooling order and the accrued proceeds but did not disclose these facts in making the purchase offer. Plaintiffs signed the mineral deeds which defendant provided and subsequently discovered the pooling order, the production, and the accrued proceeds. Plaintiffs sued for rescission and damages, alleging misrepresentation, deceit and fraud. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the summary judgment. After its review, the Supreme Court concluded defendant obtained the mineral deeds from plaintiffs by false representation and suppression of the whole truth. Defendant was therefore liable to plaintiffs for constructive fraud. Rescission was the appropriate remedy for defendant's misrepresentation and constructive fraud. Therefore, the Court reversed the appellate court and reinstated the district court's judgment. View "Widner v. Enerlex, Inc." on Justia Law

After Page and SNAP sued Owl for breach of contract, Owl counterclaimed for breach of the same contract. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Owl on all claims and the counterclaim. Owl elected not to pursue damages on its counterclaim at that time. The court dismissed with a condition that if any aspect of the rulings are reversed or modified, by any appellate court, Owl can reassert the counterclaim following remand. The plaintiffs agreed not to assert any defense based on the passage of time.” The parties appealed. The Seventh Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the conditional dismissal did not create a final order under 28 U.S.C. 1291. An appellate court must be able to determine at the time of appeal whether a final, litigation-ending decision has been entered. View "Page Plus of Atlanta, Inc. v. Owl Wireless, LLC" on Justia Law

After Plaintiff obtained a judgment against Logs Unlimited, Inc., the corporation transferred its assets to Thomas Schramel, Schramel's daughter, and another corporation. Schramel was the sole shareholder, director, and officer of both corporations. Proceeds from the transfer were used to pay some of Logs Unlimited's creditors, but Plaintiff was not among the creditors paid. Plaintiffs sued Logs Unlimited, claiming that it had fraudulently transferred its assets. The circuit court set aside the transfer, concluding that Logs Unlimited fraudulently transferred its assets to prevent satisfaction of Plaintiff's judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, upon consideration of the relevant factors, the transfer was fraudulent under S.D. Codified Laws 54-8A-4(a)(1). View "Nielsen v. Logs Unlimited, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought a lawsuit against the company that marketed the anti-obesity drug combination known as Fen-Phen. Plaintiffs claims were transferred from Kentucky to a similar action pending in Alabama, where Plaintiffs were represented by Attorneys. After Plaintiffs' claims were settled, Plaintiffs brought this action against Attorneys, claiming that Attorneys wrongfully withheld from each Plaintiff a substantial portion of the settlement award. The circuit court dismissed the action, concluding that Plaintiffs' complaint was untimely filed under the applicable statute of limitations. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiffs were not prejudiced by the court of appeals' affirmation of a summary judgment dismissing the claims of all fifty Plaintiffs where the motion before the trial court related to only one particular plaintiff; (2) the court of appeals erred in applying the Alabama statute of limitations rather than Kentucky's, but Appellants' suit was untimely under the applicable Kentucky statutes; (3) Plaintiffs' claims of misrepresentation were subject to the one-year limitation period for professional service malpractice rather than the general five-year limitation period; and (4) the application of the statutes of limitations was not an issue to be resolved by a jury. View "Abel v. Austin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a school, was sued by two of the school's donors who sought a return of a monetary gift to the school, claiming that the gift had been induced by misrepresentations. The case settled, and Plaintiff sought defense costs and indemnity under a directors and officers liability insurance policy issued by Defendant. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendant based on a provision in the policy excluding from coverage any losses involving any matter disclosed in connection with "Note 8" of the school's financial statement. Note 8 set forth a description of the gift. Plaintiff appealed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because the language of the policy clearly excluded coverage "in any way involving" the disputed gift, Plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of coverage. View "Clark Sch. for Creative Learning, Inc. v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In 2000, the Schuchmans purchased homeowner’s insurance from State Auto to insure a residence in Junction City, Illinois. About 10 years later, a fire severely damaged the insured house and the Schuchmans made a claim against the homeowner’s policy. After a lengthy investigation, State Auto denied the claim on the basis that the Schuchmans were not residing on the “residence premises,” as that term is defined by the policy, and were maintaining a residence other than at the “residence premises,” in violation of the policy’s Special Provisions. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of State Auto. The Seventh Circuit reversed, agreeing that the term “residence premises” is ambiguous and should be liberally construed in favor of coverage. View "Schuchman v. State Auto Prop. & Cas.Ins. Co." on Justia Law