Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case stemmed from the grant of summary judgment in favor of an insurance company. The insureds contended that the liability coverage provision in their homeowner's policy required the insurer to defend a lawsuit brought by a contractor they hired to repair fire damage to their home and to remodel the home, and that the insurer was required to indemnify against any recovery by the contractor. Upon review of the policy underlying this case, the Supreme Court found no such duties as the insureds contended and affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Linford v. State Farm Fire & Casualty" on Justia Law

Ida-Therm, LLC appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Bedrock Geothermal, LLC, which held that a reservation of "all the oil, gas, and minerals, in, on, or under the surface of [deeded] lands," in a 1946 warranty deed included the geothermal resources underlying the property. The district court determined that the Deed's mineral reservation severed the mineral estate from the surface estate, and that geothermal resources were included in the scope of the mineral estate. Because the Supreme Court found that the term "mineral" was ambiguous with respect to the deed in question, and because ambiguous grants in deeds are construed against the grantor, the Court construed the grant in favor of Ida-Therm and reversed the district court. View "Ida-Therm v. Bedrock Geothermal" on Justia Law

Dr. Stephen L. Wallace appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Belleview Properties Corporation, IPF/Belleview Limited Partnership ("IPF"), HR/Belleview, L.P., and Infinity Property Management Corporation ("the defendants"). In August 1991, Wallace leased office space in the Belleview Shopping Center to use for his dental practice. Around 1996, the defendants purchased the shopping center and renewed Wallace's lease. The lease was renewed a second time in 2003 for a term of five years. In 2005, Wallace sued the defendants,1 alleging fraud and suppression; negligence; wantonness; breach of contract; unjust enrichment; and negligent training, supervision, and retention. Wallace alleged that, during the term of the lease, he reported various maintenance problems to the defendants. He also alleged that, although the defendants assured him that the problems would be taken care of, but that they were not. Wallace asserted that, as a result of reported water leaks that were left unrepaired, the office was infested with toxic mold. Therefore, he had to close his practice to avoid exposing his employees and his patients to the toxic mold. The defendants successfully filed a motion for a summary judgment as to Wallace's claims against them. In 2010, Wallace filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that Wallace did not timely file his notice of appeal. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Wallace v. Belleview Properties Corp." on Justia Law

Target Media Partners Operating Company, LLC ("Target Media"), and Specialty Marketing Corporation d/b/a Truck Market News ("Specialty Marketing"), both publishers of magazines directed to long-haul truck drivers and to the truck-driving industry, have been in a commercial-contract dispute since 2007 in which each party alleged breach-of-contract claims against the other. Specialty Marketing also alleged fraudulent-misrepresentation and promissory-fraud claims against Target Media and Ed Leader, Target Media's vice president of trucking, and sought punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Specialty Marketing on its breach-of-contract and promissory-fraud claims against Target Media, in favor of Leader on the promissory-fraud claim against him, in favor of Specialty Marketing on its fraudulent-misrepresentation claim against Target Media and Leader, and in favor of Target Media on its breach-of-contract counterclaim against Specialty Marketing. Target Media and Leader appealed that aspect of the judgment entered on the jury verdict in favor of Specialty Marketing on its claims against Target Media and Leader. Specialty Marketing did not appeal the judgment insofar as it found in favor of Target Media on Target Media's counterclaim. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order denying Target Media's motion for a judgment as a matter of law (JML)and/or a new trial as to Specialty Marketing's breach-of-contract claim. The Court reversed the trial court's order denying Target Media and Leader's motion for a JML as to Specialty Marketing's fraudulent-misrepresentation and promissory-fraud claims. The case was remanded back to the trial court for entry of a JML in favor of Target Media and Leader as to Specialty Marketing's fraudulent-misrepresentation claim and to enter a JML in favor of Target Media as to Specialty Marketing's promissory-fraud claim. Because the Court concluded that the trial court should have granted a JML as to Specialty Marketing's fraudulent-misrepresentation and promissory-fraud claims, the Court pretermitted consideration of the other arguments made by the parties regarding those claims. View "Target Media Partners Operating Company, LLC v. Specialty Marketing Corp." on Justia Law

Appellants Raoel and Janet Clark and Jerry and Betty Peterson appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Buku Properties, LLC. Buku filed suit against the Clarks and the Petersons to recover earnest money deposits after two codependent land sale contracts failed to close. At the time the parties entered into the land sale contracts, the properties were zoned "R-1," which allowed for a minimum density of one acre lots. However, after the contracts were executed, but prior to closing, the Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Commission began discussions to change the R-1 designation of the properties to R-5, which mandated a five acre minimum density. While conducting its due diligence, Buku discovered the County’s plan to change the zoning designation of the properties. Aware of the potential re-zoning, Buku sent Appellants proposed addenda to the land sale contracts seeking to extend the review period and closing date due to concerns about zoning and financing. The bank financing Buku’s purchase of the properties sent Buku a letter stating that Buku’s loan was only “conditionally approved,” and that, if the property were re-zoned R-5, the property value would be decreased. The bank stated that in order to fund the loan it “must receive verification from Jefferson County that this property will remain zoned R-1 Residential.” Buku sent Appellants’ counsel a letter demanding that all of the earnest money, except for a non-refundable amount from the Peterson contract, be returned. When none of the earnest money was returned, Buku brought suit alleging: (1) return of earnest money under contract; (2) conversion; and, (3) unjust enrichment. Additionally, Buku requested prejudgment interest on the earnest money and attorney fees. Appellants filed a counterclaim with their answer, asserting seven claims: (1) specific performance; (2) breach of contract; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) estoppel; (5) promissory estoppel/unjust enrichment; (6) Consumer Protection Act violations; and, (7) attorney fees. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no error in the district court's judgment, and affirmed its decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Buku. View "Buku Properties v. Clark" on Justia Law

Ila and Gary Fedderson owned a business called Whisky Flow Dining and Minor Alley. Whisky Flow was destroyed by fire, after which Ila and Gary submitted a sworn proof of loss statement to the business's insurer, Columbia Insurance Group. Gary, however, made misrepresentations and committed fraud in submitting the statement. Columbia declined to pay Ila benefits, relying on a condition that voided the policy for fraud or misrepresentation by any insured. Ila filed suit, claiming that she was an innocent insured who was entitled to her share of the claim that related to her fifty percent interest in the business. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Columbia. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court correctly granted Columbia's motion for summary judgment, as Gary's misrepresentation and fraud voided the policy. View "Fedderson v. Columbia Ins. Group" on Justia Law

Hospital purchased from Assurance Company of America a "builder's risk" insurance policy and contracted with Wehr Constructors for installation of subsurfaces and floors as part its project. After installation, a portion of the floors and subsurface done by Wehr was damaged. Hospital sought recompense under the builders risk policy. Assurance denied the claim. Meanwhile, Wehr and Hospital settled on Wehr's breach of contract claim. As part of the settlement, Hospital assigned to Wehr any claim Hospital had against Assurance arising out of the policy. Wehr, as Hospital's assignee, then sued Assurance in federal district court. Assurance moved for judgment on the pleadings, invoking the policy's anti-assignment provision and arguing that it had not consented to the assignment. The district court requested certification to answer a question of Kentucky law. The Supreme Court concluded that under Kentucky law, a clause in an insurance policy that requires the insured to obtain the insurer's prior written consent before assigning a claim for an insured loss under the policy is not enforceable or applicable to the assignment of a claim under the policy where the covered loss occurs before the assignment, and that such a clause would, under those circumstances, be void as against public policy. View "Wehr Constructors, Inc. v. Assurance Co. of Am." on Justia Law

While Brenda Osborne was at home alone, an airplane pilot crashed his airplane into Osborne's home. Osborne subsequently hired Attorney to assist her recovering her losses from the pilot, but when the lawsuit was finally filed, the federal court dismissed the action as barred by limitations. Osborne filed this action against Attorney asserting breach of contract, legal malpractice, and fraud and deceit. A jury found in favor of Osborne, resulting in a judgment against Attorney in excess of $5 million. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment in part but vacated a large portion of the damage award. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court properly tried this case using the suit-within-a-suit method but erred when it failed to instruct the jury on Pilot's negligence, thus resulting in Osborne's failure to establish that Attorney's malpractice proximately caused her loss; (2) emotional-distress plaintiffs must first satisfy the elements of a general negligence claim; and (3) punitive damages are not recoverable against an attorney in a legal malpractice case. View "Osborne v. Keeney" on Justia Law

A general contractor (Carlisle) for a construction project contracted with Plaintiff to perform carpentry work for the project. A bond was issued for the project. Carlisle was the principal on the bond, and International Fidelity Insurance Company (IFIC) was the surety. Plaintiff later filed suit against Carlisle and IFIC seeking to recover payment for the work it performed. The arbitrator issued two amended awards. Plaintiff moved the superior court to confirm the second amended awarded concerning Carlisle's liability and to modify it as to IFIC. The trial justice remanded the matter back to the arbitrator for a determination as to IFIC's liability. The arbitrator on remand found that both Carlisle and IFIC were liable to Plaintiff for $43,543. The trial justice confirmed the post-remand arbitration award. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding (1) the second amended award should have been vacated under R.I. Stat. 37-16-18(2), and the trial justice was authorized, under section 37-16-19, to remand the case to the same arbitrator for a hearing; and (2) because the remand in this case accomplished the same result that could have been accomplished under section 37-16-18 and 37-16-19, the judgment was affirmed. View "Drago Custom Interiors, LLC v. Carlisle Bldg. Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

Patients Abby Allen and Walter Moore sought medical treatment at Clarian North Hospital, which was owned by Clarian Health Partners. After Allen, who was uninsured and not covered by Medicare or Medicaid, received services, the hospital billed Allen its "chargemaster" rates in accordance with a contract between Allen and Clarian. Patients' class action complaint alleged breach of contract and sought declaratory judgment that the rates the hospital billed its uninsured patients were unreasonable and unenforceable. The trial court granted Clarian's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the issue of reasonableness required resolution by a fact-finder. The Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the court of appeals and affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that Patients' agreement to pay the hospital for the medical services they received in the context of a contract they formed with Clarian was not indefinite and referred to Clarian's chargemaster. As a result, the Court could not impute a "reasonable" price term into the contract. View "Allen v. Clarian Health Partners, Inc." on Justia Law