Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Petitioners and Respondents executed a land contract whereby Respondents agreed to sell a piece of property to Petitioners. After the land contract had been fully consummated, Respondents refused to tender a deed to Petitioners. Petitioners filed suit, seeking a delivery of a general warranty deed for the property, including all oil and gas rights. Two months later, Respondents tendered a deed to Petitioners reserving oil and gas rights. The deed was recorded on February 17, 2010. Petitioners moved for summary judgment, arguing that because the land contract did not contained any language indicating Respondents' intention to except oil and gas rights, any questions of interpretation should be resolved in favor of the grantees. The trial court granted summary judgment for Respondents, finding that when the deed was recorded, the land contract was merged in the deed and any cause of action based upon the contract was extinguished. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the contract was unambiguous, and Respondents failed to establish any legally sufficient basis for varying its terms; and (2) therefore, Respondents were obligated to convey their title and interest to the property, including their vested oil and gas rights. Remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of Petitioners. View "Spitznogle v. Durbin" on Justia Law

Basic Research, LLC marketed the weight-loss product Akavar. Customers who purchased Akavar filed lawsuits against Basic Research claiming false advertising, defective product, and failure to perform as promised. Basic Research was insured by Admiral Insurance under a policy that provided coverage for "personal and advertising injury." After the underlying claims were filed, Basic Research invoked its coverage and asked Admiral to defend it. Admiral refused to defend, alleging that the underlying claims were not covered by the terms of the policy. Thereafter, Basic Research brought this suit for declaratory relief. The district court granted Admiral's motion for summary judgment, finding that the underlying claims were specifically excluded from coverage. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the asserted claims were not covered by the policy and were in fact squarely excluded by its terms; and (2) therefore, Admiral had no duty to defend Basic Research. View "Basic Research, LLC v. Admiral Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff served as superintendent of schools in the town of North Brookfield until 2005. Plaintiff's employment contract provided that, on his retirement, Plaintiff would be reimbursed thereafter for a percentage of his health insurance premiums on an annual basis. In 2006, Plaintiff sent a request for reimbursement for a fixed percentage of the premium costs for his health insurance policy from the date of retirement. When the town refused to honor the request Plaintiff filed this action against the school committee and the town for breach of contract and specific performance of the contract. The superior court granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, Defendants argued that the obligation to reimburse Plaintiff for a percentage of his health insurance costs annually for his life signaled that Plaintiff's final employment contract was a lifetime agreement that exceeded six years in duration and therefore violated Mass. Gen. Laws 71, 41. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the employment contract at issue in this case was valid and enforceable even though the reimbursement clause would presumptively exceed six years, as a contract that has expired may include enforceable obligations to be performed by the parties thereafter. View "O'Neill v. Sch. Comm. of N. Brookfield" on Justia Law

An Arizona couple was injured on their motorcycle by another biker. The accident occurred in South Dakota. Because the other motorcyclist left the scene, the couple sought uninsured motorist benefits from their insurer. The couple's policy was issued in Arizona for a motorcycle registered and principally garaged in Arizona. The insurer tendered the policy's full uninsured motorist benefits of $15,000 per person. However, the couple would have recovered $25,000 per person in South Dakota had they been able to obtain the other biker's liability insurance. The circuit court declared that the terms of the Arizona insurance policy, rather than South Dakota law, governed the applicable coverage. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that altering the terms of the parties' contracts in these circumstances was not supported by law. View "Milinkovich v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a dispute in district court over two liens on real property: a deed of trust and a mortgage. Appellants (Insight, LLC and several other companies) are assignees of a mortgage secured by 160 acres of real property owned by Summitt, Inc., which included an 18-acre parcel Summitt purchased from Respondents Patrick and Monica Gunter. The Respondents held a deed of trust on the 18-acre parcel. Summitt defaulted on its obligations to both Insight and the Gunters. Insight filed suit naming Summitt's principals and the Gunters as defendants. The Gunters denied that their deed of trust was junior to the Insight-Summitt mortgage. The district court denied Insight's motion for summary judgment because there was an issue as to who was the initial encumbrancer. After trial, the district court found that the closing of the Gunter-Summitt deed of trust was separate and independent from the Insight-Summitt mortgage. Furthermore, the court found that the Gunters' deed of trust effectively encumbered the Gunter property at the time the transaction between Summitt and the Gunters closed. However, it found that the Insight mortgage on the combined 160-acre parcel did not create an encumbrance on the Gunter property until the Gunter-Summitt transaction closed. On appeal, Insight argued that the mortgage had priority as a matter of law because it was a purchase money mortgage that was first recorded. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court's finding that Insight had notice of the Gunters' deed of trust was clearly erroneous. Further, the Insight-Summitt mortgage was a purchase money mortgage , and that the court erred in concluding the deed of trust took priority. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the district court's judgment in this case and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Insight LLC v. Gunter" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Gary Duspiva, a well driller, filed suit against Defendants-Appellees Clyde and John Fillmore to recover money that he claimed was owed to him for well drilling services. The Fillmores counterclaimed, alleging Duspiva violated the Idaho Consumer Protection Act (ICPA). The matter proceeded to trial. The district court found that Duspiva's conduct violated the ICPA and granted judgment in favor of the Fillmores. Duspiva appealed to the Supreme Court. Finding no error or abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Duspiva v. Fillmore" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case arose from a commercial lease dispute. Boise Mode, LLC leased space in its building to Donahoe Pace & Partners, Ltd. (DPP). Timothy Pace executed a personal guarantee for the lease. During the term of the lease, Boise Mode remodeled part of the building for another tenant. After raising concerns to Boise Mode about the adverse effects of the construction to its business, DPP eventually stopped paying rent and vacated the premises prior to the end of the lease. Boise Mode then brought an action against DPP, alleging breach of contract, and against Pace for breaching the guarantee. DPP counterclaimed, alleging that the disruption caused by the construction constituted breach of contract and constructive eviction. After Boise Mode moved for summary judgment on all claims and counterclaims, DPP requested a continuance to complete discovery. The district court denied DPP's motion and ultimately granted Boise Mode's motion for summary judgment. DPP appealed the grant of summary judgment as well as the district court's denial of its request for a continuance. Upon review, and finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Boise Mode, LLC v. Donahoe Pace" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case involved the enforceability of a binding arbitration clause included within a debt adjustment contract. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to compel arbitration, ruling that the motion was untimely and that the binding arbitration clause was unconscionable. Upon review of the trial court record and the clause at issue, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's holding that the clause was unconscionable, which then required the Court to decide whether this conclusion as to the validity of the binding arbitration clause is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Finding no preemption, the Court affirmed. View "Gandee v. LDL Freedom Enters., Inc." on Justia Law

Glassman is a car dealer in Southfield, Michigan and an authorized Kia dealer, under an Agreement that states that Glassman’s rights are not exclusive. Glassman agreed to assume certain responsibilities in its Area of Primary Responsibility, an area undefined in the Agreement, but agreed “that it has no right or interest in any [Area of Primary Responsibility] that [Kia] may designate” and that “[a]s permitted by applicable law, [Kia] may add new dealers to … the [Area of Primary Responsibility].” Michigan’s Motor Dealers Act grants car dealers certain limited territorial rights, even when the dealer has a nonexclusive franchise, and requires manufacturers to provide notice to an existing dealer before establishing a new dealer within a certain distance of the existing dealer’s location. Receipt of notice gives the existing dealer a cause of action to challenge the proposed new dealer. Kia and Glassman entered into their Agreement in 1998, when the distance for notice was 6 miles. A 2010 amendment increased the distance to 9 miles. The district court found that the parties did not agree to comply with the 2010 Amendment and that the 2010 Amendment is not retroactive. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the 6-mile distance applies. View "Kia Motors Am., Inc. v. Glassman Oldsmobile Saab Hyundai, Inc." on Justia Law

Gerald Kirchner accidentally shot and killed Robbie Bragg while both men were working for Grimmett Enterprises (Grimmett). Kirchner's mother, Barbara Surbaugh, filed a complaint against Bragg and Grimmett. The parties settled, after which Defendants assigned all claims they might have against their respective insurers for refusing to provide a defense and coverage. Thereafter, Surbaugh filed a declaratory judgment action against Grimmett's insurer, American States. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. At issue was whether an employee exclusion in the policy was ambiguous and whether the exclusion had been brought to the attention of Grimmett. The circuit court denied the motions. After a jury trial, the circuit court concluded that the employee policy exclusion was unenforceable because the exclusionary language had not been brought to the attention of Grimmett. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that summary judgment should have been granted in favor of American States, as American States established at the summary judgment stage that no material issue of fact was in dispute as to the exclusion being unambiguous and disclosed to Grimmett. Therefore, the exclusion was enforceable. View "Am. States Ins. Co. v. Surbaugh" on Justia Law