Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Ryan Price-Williams sued Admiral Insurance Company and Gabriel Dean and Charles Baber in Circuit Court pursuant to Alabama's direct-action statute. Both Dean and Baber were alleged by Price-Williams to be covered under a commercial general-liability insurance policy Admiral had issued the national Kappa Sigma fraternity to which Dean and Baber belonged. Price-Williams alleged that Admiral was obligated to pay a judgment that had been entered in favor of Price-Williams and against Dean and Baber in a previous action. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Price-Williams and against Admiral, holding that the Admiral policy provided coverage to Dean and Baber for the negligent and/or wanton acts that formed the basis of the underlying action. Price-Williams sued Admiral after obtaining a judgment against Dean and Baber, who he alleged were insured by Admiral under a policy Admiral had issued to Kappa Sigma, by virtue of their positions as officers of the local chapter of Kappa Sigma. Following another bench trial, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Price-Williams, obligating Admiral to fulfill the judgment entered against Dean and Baber in the underlying action. Because the evidence presented at trial supported the trial court's conclusion that Admiral's policy with Kappa Sigma provided liability coverage to Dean and Baber with regard to the negligence and wantonness claims tried in the underlying action, the Supreme Court affirmed that judgment. View "Admiral Insurance Company v. Price-Williams " on Justia Law

Miller Trucking, LLC, Ben Miller, and Miriam Miller ("the Miller plaintiffs) appeal a summary judgment in favor of APAC Mid-South, Inc. (APAC), Oldcastle Materials, Inc., and Steve Reynolds (defendants). The facts of this appeal were based on contracts between the Alabama Department of Transportation ("ADOT") and APAC and between APAC and Miller Trucking. ADOT hired APAC to provide aggregate materials for distribution to counties, and APAC, in turn, hired Miller Trucking to haul the aggregate materials to the counties purchasing the aggregate materials from the State. At issue in this appeal were adjustments to the compensation of APAC paid Miller Trucking based on the cost of fuel during the time of the contract. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's summary judgment in favor of defendants and remanded the case for further proceedings. A genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether a 2008 APAC-Miller Trucking contract and a 2009 hired-truck qualification agreement were modified to include fuel-price-adjustment agreements and, if so, what the terms of those agreements were. View "Miller Trucking, LLC, et al. v. APAC Mid-South, Inc., et al. " on Justia Law

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Southern Division certified a question to the Alabama Supreme Court: "Under Alabama law, may a drug company be held liable for fraud or misrepresentation (by misstatement or omission), based on statements it made in connection with the manufacture or distribution of a brand-name drug, by a plaintiff claiming physical injury from a generic drug manufactured and distributed by a different company?" Plaintiffs Danny and Vicki Weeks filed this action against five current and former drug manufacturers for injuries that Mr. Weeks allegedly suffered as a result of his long-term use of the prescription drug product metoclopramide, the generic form of the brand-name drug "Reglan." The Weekses contended that the Wyeth defendants had a duty to warn Danny's physician about the risks associated with the long-term use of metoclopramide and that the Weekses, as third parties, have a right to enforce the alleged breach of that duty. The Supreme Court concluded: "[i]n the context of inadequate warnings by the brand-name manufacturer placed on a prescription drug manufactured by a generic-drug manufacturer, it is not fundamentally unfair to hold the brand-name manufacturer liable for warnings on a product it did not produce because the manufacturing process is irrelevant to misrepresentation theories based, not on manufacturing defects in the product itself, but on information and warning deficiencies, when those alleged misrepresentations were drafted by the brand-name manufacturer and merely repeated by the generic manufacturer." View "Wyeth, Inc., et al. v. Weeks " on Justia Law

OCV supplies equipment and licenses software for in-room hotel entertainment and sought a judgment of $641,959.54 against Roti, the owner of companies (Markwell, now defunct) that owned hotels to which OCV provided services. The district judge granted summary judgment, piercing the corporate veil, but rejecting a fraud claim. The Seventh Circuit reversed. While the Markwell companies were under-funded, OCV failed to treat the companies as separate businesses and proceed accordingly in the bankruptcy proceedings of one of the companies and made no effort to determine the solvency of the companies. View "On Command Video Corp. v. Roti" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs in this case were royalty owners entitled to receive a share of the production of natural gas in a gas field. Plaintiffs brought a class action against Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (APC) and its affiliates challenging the manner in which APC was paying royalties on natural gas production under the respective oil and gas leases. Timothy Coulter represented the plaintiff class and negotiated a settlement agreement. More than 6,000 members made up the settlement class, one of whom was Stan Boles. Boles objected to the amended class certification and the class settlement agreement negotiated by Coulter. The district court approved the settlement despite Boles' objection. Boles appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in assessing the adequacy of the class representation or the character of the settlement agreement. View "Coulter v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp." on Justia Law

A bail bond company challenged the district court's decision affirming an order of the Director of the Idaho Department of Insurance. That order, which was based on I.C. 41-1042, prohibited a bail bond company from contemporaneously writing a bail bond and contracting with a client to indemnify the company for the cost of apprehending a bail jumper. It also prohibited a bail bond company from later requiring a client to agree to such indemnification as a condition of the bond's continuing validity. While the proceedings before the district court were pending, the Director promulgated I.D.A.P.A. 18.01.04.016.02, which by rule expressed the Final Order. Upon review of the applicable statutory authority and the trial court record below, the Supreme Court concluded that: (1) the plain text of I.C. 41-1042 permits a bail bond company to contemporaneously write a bail bond and contract with a client to indemnify the company for the cost of apprehending a defendant who jumps bail; and (2) the Director's interpretation of I.C. 41-1042 prejudiced PetitionerTwo Jinn's substantial rights. The Court reversed the district court's memorandum decision and remanded the case for further review. View "Two Jinn, Inc. v. Idaho Dept of Insurance" on Justia Law

Defendant Donna Mae Peck appealed a superior court judgment that granted plaintiff Victor Shattuck a writ of possession for the parties' former residence in Cavendish and that denied her counterclaim for an equitable interest in the Cavendish property and another former residence in Springfield. Between December 1997 and June 1999, plaintiff purchased two adjoining parcels of land in Cavendish. He made most of the payments for the first parcel, but defendant made a significant financial contribution toward payment of the second parcel. In 2001, plaintiff conveyed the Cavendish properties to himself and defendant as joint tenants with rights of survivorship, and defendant conveyed the Springfield property to herself and plaintiff as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. The parties lived together in Cavendish until June 2010, when plaintiff decided to end their relationship. Following an angry confrontation, defendant obtained a relief-from-abuse order against plaintiff and was awarded sole possession of the Cavendish property. Plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint in superior court seeking to evict defendant from the Cavendish property. Defendant answered and counterclaimed, alleging that the Cavendish and Springfield properties were the subject of a partnership agreement between the parties. Alleging that she had been induced to convey the Springfield properties by plaintiff's fraudulent misrepresentations, she also sought equitable relief through imposition of a resulting or constructive trust. She later claimed that the Cavendish property was also held in a constructive trust for her benefit. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court: "pursuant to the principles of equity, not every unmarried cohabitant who confers an economic benefit on his or her partner is entitled to payback if the relationship ends. In this case, defendant may or may not ultimately be entitled to restitution, whether in the form of a constructive trust or a money judgment, for her substantial investments in the Cavendish and Springfield properties, and any such judgment could well be subject to offsets for benefits received." View "Shattuck v. Peck" on Justia Law

Employee filed a complaint against Corporation seeking damages for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and wrongful termination. Previous to the suit, Corporation offered Employee a severance package that Employee rejected because it would have taken away any rights to a claim for a change in control. A jury found for Employee on all counts except for wrongful termination. The trial court awarded damages and attorney's fees to Employee. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding the circuit court did not err when it (1) refused to hold, as a matter of law, that Employee failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a change in control occurred; (2) instructed the jury to construe any ambiguities in the contracts against the drafter; (3) submitted Employee's alternative theory of mandatory severance benefits to the jury; (4) submitted Employee's claim for unjust enrichment to the jury; (5) admitted the testimony of Employee's damages expert; and (6) awarded Employee attorneys' fees and expenses for breach of the severance agreement. However, the trial court erred in determining that the severance agreement entitled Employee to recover his legal fees for claims that were not related to breach of the severance agreement. View "Online Res. Corp. v. Lawlor" on Justia Law

Prime Motor Cars sold Seacoast RV, Inc. a car. The car had modifications that voided the manufacturer's warranty and caused mechanical problems that may not have been apparent when the car was sold because the "check engine" light was covered with opaque tape. Seacoast filed a complaint against Prime, alleging breach of contract, breach of warranty, fraud, violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA), and punitive damages. The district court granted Prime's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the UTPA and punitive damages claims. The court then concluded that Prime's conduct constituted breach of contract and breach of warranty, but found against Seacoast on the fraud claim. The court rescinded the contract and ordered Prime to refund Seacoast and Seacoast to return the vehicle to Prime. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in its judgment. View "Seacoast RV, Inc. v. Sawdran, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a resident of Arizona, sued Defendant, a foreign corporation that operates in Florida, after he contracted to buy an aircraft from Defendant but Defendant failed to deliver the aircraft. The U.S. district court applied Florida with respect to some of Plaintiff's claims and applied Arizona law to the remainder of the claims. The court also denied Defendant's motion for attorney's fees under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit certified several questions to the Florida Supreme Court. The Court answered (1) because Plaintiff invoked FDUTPA by filing an action asserting a claim seeking recovery under FDUTPA in which Defendant ultimately prevailed, Defendant was entitled to attorney's fees under FDUPTA; (2) Defendant was entitled to fees for only the period of litigation until the federal district court held that FDUPTA did not apply to Plaintiff's claim; (3) Florida's offer of judgment statute does not apply to cases that seek both equitable relief and damages and in which Defendant has served an offer of judgment that seeks release of all claims; and (4) even if Florida's offer of judgment statute applied in this case, Defendant would not be entitled to attorney's fees under that section. View "Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. Horowitch" on Justia Law