Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Husband and Wife signed a contract to make mutual wills and then executed those wills. Soon after Husband's death, Wife executed a new will that was inconsistent with her previous will. Following Wife's death, the children of Husband's earlier marriage filed an action asserting, among other things, that their stepmother's last will was invalid because it breached the contract to prepare mutual wills and that the will prepared by their stepmother pursuant to the contract to make mutual wills should be admitted into probate rather than her last will. The trial court granted summary judgment to Husband's children, determining that the contract to make mutual wills was supported by adequate consideration and that, therefore, Wife's last will was null and void. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Husband's children were entitled to judgment as a matter of law sustaining their challenge to the validity of Wife's will because, as a matter of law, the contract to make mutual wills was supported by adequate consideration. View "In re Estate of Brown" on Justia Law

Defendant Ritchie Corporation conveyed title to a tract of land a waste systems corporation (BFI). Ritchie and BFI entered into an escrow agreement that entitled BFI to operate the property as a nonhazardous waste transfer station for thirty-five years. Ritchie granted BFI a right of first refusal to buy the transfer station from Ritchie. BFI later assigned its title and interest in the escrow agreement to Plaintiff Waste Connections, which began operating the transfer station. Later, a third party agreed to buy the transfer station and an adjoining landfill. Waste Connections asserted its right of first refusal to purchase the transfer station. Waste Connections and Ritchie subsequently disputed the proper price owed under the escrow agreement - $1.45 million or $2 million. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Ritchie. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because genuine issues of material fact remained on Waste Connections' breach of contract action against Ritchie, summary judgment for either party was inappropriate. View "Waste Connections of Kan., Inc. v. Ritchie Corp." on Justia Law

Sheridan Fire Fighters Local No. 276 filed suit against the City of Sheridan alleging that the City breached the parties' collective bargaining agreement when it failed to provide pay raises to five firefighters who had qualified for a "step increase" in salary. The City responded that the raises were not required and that, under the terms of the agreement, the City retained discretion in the award of pay raises. The district court granted summary judgment for the City. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of Local 276, holding (1) the agreement was ambiguous about whether step increases in salary were mandatory or left to the City's discretion; and (2) because Local 276 presented evidence in support of its summary judgment motion consistent with the union's interpretation that the agreement required the City to give step increases to all eligible firefighters, and the City offered no evidence to the contrary, there were no genuine issues of material fact, and Local 276 showed it was entitled to judgment in its favor. View "Sheridan Fire Fighters Local No. 276 v. City of Sheridan" on Justia Law

Second Chance Investments, LLC (SCI) purchased a fire insurance policy from Auto-Owners Insurance Company (Auto-Owners) that covered a building with the limit of insurance set at $2,095,500. The building subsequently suffered extensive fire damage. SCI filed a proof of loss claiming the building was a total loss. Auto-Owners rejected the proof of loss, contending that it did not state the actual cash value of the loss as required by the policy or provide a written estimate of repair to support the claim. After a continued dispute over whether the property was a total loss, Auto-Owners ultimately filed a complaint in district court seeking an order compelling SCI to submit the issue of whether the building was a total loss to a binding determination by an appraisal panel. The district court denied Auto-Owners' motion to compel appraisal and dismissed its complaint. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that a court, rather than an appraisal panel, is the appropriate forum to determine whether the property suffered a total loss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a party to a fire insurance policy does not have the statutory right to have an appraisal panel decide whether a claim involves a total loss. View "Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Second Chance Invs., LLC" on Justia Law

The Whites signed a contract to buy the Farrells' property and tendered a $25,000 deposit. The Whites later terminated the contract due to a faulty "drainage situation." The Whites subsequently sued the Farrells to recover their down payment, alleging, inter alia, fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation. The Farrells counterclaimed for damages for breach of contract. Both parties moved for summary judgment. Supreme Court concluded (1) the Whites had breached the contract and were not entitled to a return of their down payment; and (2) the measure of the Farrells' actual damages was the difference between the contract price and the market value of the property at the time of the breach, and thus, the Farrells did not suffer damages on account of the Whites' breach. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed as modified, holding (1) the measure of damages for the Whites' breach was the difference between the contract price and the fair market value of the property at the time of the breach; and (2) there was conflicting evidence as to the property's fair market value when the Whites default, which precluded summary judgment. Remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings. View "White v. Farrell" on Justia Law

In a wrongful death action against a nursing home, the nursing home moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the nursing home resident was the third-party beneficiary to the admission and arbitration agreements signed by his sister. The trial court denied the motion, finding that no valid contract was signed by someone with the legal authority to do so, and the nursing home appealed. Because the resident's sister lacked the authority to contract for him, and thus no valid contract existed, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration. View "GGNSC Batesville, LLC v. Johnson" on Justia Law

In open court, Appellant Vanessa Condon and Respondent Fely Condon entered into a stipulated settlement and dismissal with prejudice of Vanessa's claims against Fely, stemming from an automobile accident. Before payment, Fely requested that Vanessa sign a release agreement, which the parties had not discussed nor placed on the record. Vanessa refused to sign, and Fely made a motion to enforce the settlement and release. The trial court deemed the release signed, and Vanessa appealed the trial court's order. On appeal, she argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enforce release terms that were not a part of the original agreement. Fely argued that Vanessa waived her right to appeal by accepting the settlement check. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that Vanessa did not waive her right to appeal, and that the trial court improperly added implied terms to the agreement. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Condon v. Condon" on Justia Law

R.I. Pools appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Scottsdale, which insured R.I. Pools under commercial general liability policies. Scottsdale brought this action seeking declaratory judgment that it had no obligations under the policies with respect to suits brought against R.I. Pools by purchasers of swimming pools for damage the purchasers sustained when cracks developed in their pools. Because the district court erred in ruling that defects in R.I. Pool's work were not within the scope of an "occurrence" and never considered the crucial question whether the defects come within the subcontractor exception to the express exclusion of R.I. Pools's own work, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. Because the duty to defend existed up until the point at which it was legally determined that there was no possibility for coverage under the policies, Scottsdale had not shown entitlement to any reimbursement for defense costs it previously expended. View "Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. R.I. Pools Inc." on Justia Law

In 2004, Harmon contracted to provide Chicago Bulls rookie Gordon with financial and consulting services for the “duration of [his] playing career,” but outlining a compensation arrangement only for the length of Gordon’s rookie contract with the Bulls, which ended in 2008. In 2007, Gordon became dissatisfied with Harmon’s services, based in part on what he viewed to be a breach of a fiduciary duty relating to a bad investment, and prematurely terminated the agreement. Gordon sued first, claiming Harmon had breached a promissory note between the parties and had breached his fiduciary duties. Harmon asserted counterclaims for breach of the agreement and tortious interference with prospective business advantage. The district court dismissed Harmon’s counterclaims. Harmon refiled his breach of contract claim in Illinois state court and also alleged malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and tortious interference with prospective business advantage. After Gordon removed the case to federal court, the district court ruled in favor of Gordon, concluding that the parties had intended their agreement to last only for the length of Gordon’s rookie contract. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Harmon v. Gordon" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident and received medical treatment at Benefis Health System, Inc. Plaintiff had healthcare coverage as a TRICARE beneficiary and also had medical payments coverage through his insurance carrier, Kemper. Plaintiff's medical treatment costs totaled $2,073. Benefis accepted $662 from TRICARE as payment in full satisfaction of the bill pursuant to a preferred provider agreement (PPA) between Blue Cross Blue Shield and Benefis. Benefis subsequently received $1,866 from Kemper, upon which Benefis reimbursed TRICARE's payment in full. Plaintiff filed an individual and class action complaint, claiming that he was entitled to the additional $1,204 that Benefis received from Kemper over and above the TRICARE reimbursement rate. Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asking the district court to find Benefis breached its contract with TRICARE and that Benefis was liable for Plaintiff's damages. The district court converted the motion into a motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to Plaintiff. The Supreme Court reversed the grant of summary judgment, holding (1) Plaintiff was not entitled to pocket the difference between the TRICARE reimbursement rate and the amount Benefis accepted from Kemper; and (2) Plaintiff failed to establish any damages that resulted from the alleged breach. View "Conway v. Benefis Health Sys., Inc." on Justia Law