Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

In 2005, Applicant Michael Benson made an application to Leader Life for a life insurance policy, naming his wife Shannon, as Beneficiary. The application asked if the applicant had ever been treated for liver disease, had any medical or surgical treatment in the last five years or any departure from good health and whether or not the applicant had ever had an alcohol or drug problem. Applicant answered yes to the departure from good health question and told the insurance company that he had a blood clot in his leg 2003. Applicant answered no to the Liver disease question and no to the alcohol question. Leaders Life accepted his answers and issued the underlying policy in this action. In 2006, Applicant was on foot, pushing a stalled car out of the street when he was struck by another vehicle which eventually resulted in his death. His wife filed for benefits under the policy. Leaders investigated the claim. They received the hospital records pertaining to his death, which also noted his blood alcohol at his time of death, although the owner of the car testified that he smelled no alcohol on the applicant. After reviewing the records, Leaders Life's underwriter concluded that Applicant falsified his answers on his application and rescinded the policy due to Applicant's alcoholism. Certiorari was granted to review the Court of Civil Appeals opinion that reversed and remanding the case following a jury verdict in Applicant's favor. Leaders Life appealed the trial court and won on appellate review. After its review, the Supreme Court found that at trial, Leaders Life made clear that they believed there were material misrepresentations made by Applicant, and that he attempted to deceive them. However, the trier of fact, the jury did not find that such a misrepresentation had been made. They decided in favor of the beneficiary, and awarded her actual and in punitive damages. The Supreme Court declined substitute its judgment for that of the jury under the case law presented by this suit. Accordingly, the Court reinstated the trial court's judgment and vacated the appellate court's opinion. View "Benson v. Leaders Life Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Defendant Inepar S.A. Industria e Construc es (IIC) was a Brazilian power company that held a sixty percent stake in Defendant Inepar Investments, S.A., a corporation organized under the laws of Uruguay. Plaintiff IRB-Brasi Resseguros S.A. (IRB), a fifty percent state-owned corporation organized under the laws of Brazil, purchased $14 million of Inepar's global notes. After the interest payments ceased, and IRB never received the payment of the principal, Plaintiff sued IIC and Inepar seeking payment of the global note principal and the unpaid accrued interest. Inepar defaulted in this action. IIC moved for summary judgment, arguing that the guarantee IIC provided to guarantee the punctual payment of principal and interest under the terms of the global notes was void under Brazilian law and that New York's choice-of-law principals should apply, resulting in the application of Brazilian substantive law. Supreme Court ruled the express choice of New York law in the parties' contract should be given mandatory effect and ruled in favor of IIC. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a conflict-of-laws analysis need not be undertaken when there is an express choice of New York law in the parties' agreement. View "IRB-Brasil Resseguros, S.A. v. Inepar Invs., S.A." on Justia Law

Remark produced a distinctive series of television commercials for radio stations known as the “remarkable mouth” or “hot lips” commercials. The U.S. Copyright Office issued a copyright for a version of this commercial in 1980. The original holder of the copyright assigned it to Remark, which registered it with the Copyright Office in 2002. WADL, a Detroit television station, broadcast two commercials that resemble the copyright. After the commercials aired, Remark sent a cease-and-desist letter to the producer, Adell. After some negotiation, the parties agreed that $50,000 would settle Remark’s claims. Remark drafted an agreement, and Adell produced a revised version. Remark’s counsel e-mailed Adell’s counsel saying that Remark agreed to the changes. Adell forwarded a final version. Remark signed and returned the originals, but Adell never signed the agreement. It instead retained new counsel and for the first time balked at the $50,000 figure, offering to settle for a more “reasonable” amount. Remark filed suit. The district court granted Remark summary judgment but denied its request for attorney’s fees. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Remark, LLC v. Adell Broad. Corp." on Justia Law

This case involved an employment dispute between Defendant, a home heating oil company, and Plaintiffs, two former delivery truck drivers. Plaintiffs argued that they were owed compensation based on their classification as employees, rather than as independent contractors, under the Wage Act. Defendant responded (1) Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the statute of limitations, and (2) alternatively, a general release contained in the parties' contract termination agreements nevertheless defeated the Wage Act claims. The superior court stayed the proceedings and reported the statute of limitations and general release issues to the appeals court. The Supreme Court transferred the case on its own motion and held (1) Plaintiffs were entitled to recover for damages that occurred within the three-year period prior to filing the complaint; (2) the general releases contained in the contract carrier termination agreements that did not explicitly include the release of Wage Act claims failed to waive those claims; and (3) as a result, Plaintiffs remained entitled to recover for their damages accruing within the three-year period prior to filing the lawsuit. View "Crocker v.Townsend Oil Co." on Justia Law

Super Wings sued defendant for failing to pay on a promissory note and defendant asserted that he did not have to pay because Super Wings had breached an agreement it had with defendant's company, JLI. JLI intervened. The district court ruled that Super Wings had fulfilled its contractual obligations to JLI, that defendant was liable for failing to pay on his note, and that JLI's claim against Super Wings should be dismissed. The court affirmed, concluding that there was substantial evidence supporting the district court's finding that Super Wings had released JLI's property as required by the December 2008 agreement. Since the district court did not err in entering judgment for Super Wings against defendant and in dismissing JLI's claim, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Super Wings Int'l v. J Lloyd Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

In this appeal, the issue before the court concerned whether monetary damages are available to a prisoner for violations of the terms of a judicial decree approving the "Cleary Final Settlement Agreement." In 2004 appellee Corrections Corporation of America contracted with the State to house Alaska inmates at Corrections Corporation's Red Rock Correctional Center in Arizona. Byran Perotti was an Alaska inmate at Red Rock. He filed a complaint against Corrections Corporation alleging that Corrections Corporation violated provisions of its contract with the State, as well as various State Department of Corrections policies. He asserted standing as a third-party beneficiary to the contract between the State and Corrections Corporation. He based his argument on his status as a Cleary class member and the provisions of the Cleary Final Settlement Agreement, which settled the class action involving various inmate claims against the State of Alaska, Department of Corrections (DOC). Perotti's complaint sought liquidated damages under the DOC-Corrections Corporation contract, as well as compensatory damages, nominal damages, and punitive damages. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the Cleary Final Settlement Agreement did not contemplate the award of monetary damages to enforce its provisions. Therefore the Court affirmed the superior court's decision granting Corrections Corporation's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all of Perotti's claims. View "Perotti v. Corrections Corporation of America" on Justia Law

Servicios, a Venezuela corporation, filed suit in district court against John Deere, a Louisiana corporation, for breach of contract providing for Servicios' exclusive distributorship of John Deere products in Venezuela. Servicios appealed the district court's judgment dismissing the complaint. The court concluded that there was no per se rule against standing for non-resident aliens in federal courts, as John Deere contended, and that the principles of prudential standing did not call for the dismissal of Servicios' suit. The court also concluded that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing Servicios' complaint to the extent that it did so as a penalty for its perceived failure to properly brief its opposition to John Deere's motion. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Servicios Azucareros de Venezuela, C.A., et al v. John Deere Thibodeaux, Inc." on Justia Law

This was the second appeal from a judgment of the superior court finding that Annabelle Robbins had breached implied covenants in her deed when she sold land to David and Vickie Lloyd. On appeal, Robbins' estate argued that the trial court erred in (1) finding that the six-year statute of limitations had not expired, (2) finding that the neighboring landowners never possessed or occupied the disputed land and that it misquoted the neighbor's testimony in its decision, and (3) awarding damages in the amount agreed to by the parties in a stipulated judgment because the court vacated that judgment in 2010. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly found the statute of limitations had not expired at the time when the Lloyds filed their complaint alleging Robbins's breach; (2) the court's misstatement in its decision was harmless; and (3) the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding damages because the Estate failed to present any evidence that the stipulated damages were manifestly unjust and should be set aside. View "Lloyd v. Robbins" on Justia Law

LVNV Funding, LLC filed a complaint against Rae Nardi for an amount due on her credit card account with Citibank. LVNV claimed, as an assignee, it had a contractual relationship between Nardi and Citibank and a cause of action for recovery of the amount due on the account. Nardi filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that the failure to attach to the complaint a copy of the agreement between Nardi and Citibank constituted a violation of Ark. R. Civ. P. 10(d). The circuit court granted summary judgment for Nardi, finding that LVNV violated Rule 10(d), which requires that a copy of the "instrument or document" upon which the claim is based be attached to the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that compliance with Rule 10(d) is mandatory, and therefore, entry of summary judgment was proper. View "LVNV Funding, LLC v. Nardi" on Justia Law

The plaintiff-appellants, Bruce Bermel and Pamela Jurga, as husband and wife, appealed the final judgment of the Superior Court granting the motion for summary judgment of the defendant-appellee, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company. The appellants contended that the Superior Court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Liberty. Bermel was injured in an automobile accident when his personal motorcycle was struck head-on by another driver. Bermel, then an employee of the Siemens Corporation, contended that the business policy issued to Siemens by Liberty on a company car that was assigned for his business and personal use, provided him with $100,000 in underinsured motorist coverage even when he was operating a non-work vehicle in circumstances unrelated to his employment. Bermel brought this action for underinsured benefits (“UIM”) against Liberty arguing: (1) that the Liberty Policy covering the company car he used was personal to him, even though Siemens was the named insured; (2) that he was entitled to personally access the Liberty Policy because Siemens automatically deducted a nominal fee from his paycheck for his personal use of the vehicle assigned to him that was insured by the Liberty Policy; and (3) that the Liberty Policy was ambiguously drafted and should have been construed in his favor. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the Superior Court correctly found Siemens, and not Bermel, to be the named insured on the Liberty Policy, that the nominal fee charged to Bermel by Siemens for the use of the car did not make Bermel a named insured under the Liberty Policy, and that the Liberty Policy was unambiguous. Therefore, the judgments of the Superior Court were affirmed. View "Bermel v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co." on Justia Law