Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

In December 2005, Charles Baggett and Diana Morris were involved in an automobile accident, as a result of which Baggett was injured. Baggett sued Morris, who was insured by Sagamore Insurance Company. Baggett added his underinsured-motorist ("UIM") carrier, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company as a party to the action. The limit of State Farm's UIM policy was $60,000. Before Baggett commenced the action against Morris, State Farm paid Baggett $25,000, the limit of the liability policy issued by Sagamore to Morris, to protect its potential subrogation interest against Morris. At the time State Farm advanced the $25,000 to Baggett, Baggett executed an agreement entitled an "Advancement of Funds to Protect Future Subrogation Rights." State Farm opted out of the action. Following a jury trial, Baggett obtained a judgment against Morris for $181,046. Therefore, Baggett was entitled to $85,000--the total of the limits of both the Sagamore policy ($25,000) and the State Farm policy ($60,000). Sagamore paid $25,000; State Farm, rather than paying Baggett $35,000 and receiving credit pursuant to the "Advancement of Funds" agreement for the $25,000 it had advanced, mistakenly paid $60,000, resulting in an overpayment to Baggett of $25,000. As a result of the overpayment, the trial court ordered Baggett to reimburse State Farm $25,000, less a one-third attorney fee under the common-fund doctrine. State Farm appealed. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, without an opinion. State Farm petitioned the Supreme Court seeking review of the application of the common-fund doctrine. Upon review, the Court found that State Farm was entitled to a refund of the overpayment, and that if an attorney fee was due Baggett's attorney with respect to all or part of the $85,000 actually owed in the aggregate by Sagamore and State Farm, then the fee should be taken from the $85,000, not from the $25,000 State Farm overpaid and as to which it was entitled to be reimbursed. View "State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Baggett" on Justia Law

Following an automobile accident in which Tracy Mitchell was injured when the vehicle in which she was a passenger, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Mitchell's insurer, paid Mitchell's medical expenses, among other coverage payments, and then sought, through subrogation, reimbursement from the driver Amy Kirk's insurer, Cotton States Mutual Insurance Company. Mitchell filed a personal-injury action against Kirk, State Farm, and fictitiously named defendants, alleging as to State Farm, among other things, that State Farm's right to recover from any damages awarded its payment of Mitchell's medical expenses was subject to a reduction, pursuant to the common-fund doctrine, for attorney fees incurred by Mitchell in pursuing the personal-injury action. The circuit court granted State Farm's summary-judgment motion, holding that the common-fund doctrine did not obligate State Farm to pay a pro rata share of Mitchell's attorney fees. Mitchell appealed the circuit court's decision to the Court of Civil Appeals. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the circuit court's summary judgment, concluding that a common fund was created requiring State Farm to contribute to Mitchell's attorney fees; that the common-fund doctrine had not been contractually abrogated; and that the common-fund doctrine was not negated by State Farm's "active participation" in pursuing subrogation recovery. The Supreme Court granted certiorari review to determine, as a matter of first impression, the narrow question whether, under the common-fund doctrine, the subrogated insurance carrier was responsible for a pro rata share of the injured insured's attorney fees incurred in the process of obtaining an award against which the carrier has asserted a right of reimbursement. The Court affirmed the Court of Civil Appeals' judgment. View "Mitchell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc. and Regions Bank (hereinafter referred to collectively as "Regions") appealed an order of the Baldwin Circuit Court which granted in part and denied in part their motions to compel arbitration in an action filed against them by Baldwin County Sewer Service, LLC ("BCSS"). In 2001 BCSS began discussing with AmSouth Bank ("AmSouth"), the predecessor-in-interest to Regions Bank, options to finance its existing debt. AmSouth recommended that BCSS finance its debt through variable-rate demand notes ("VRDNs").1 In its complaint, BCSS alleged that in late 2008 it received a notice of a substantial increase in the variable interest rates on its 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2007 VRDNs, which constituted BCSS's first notice that the interest-rate-swap agreements recommended by Regions did not fix the interest rate on the VRDNs but, instead, exposed BCSS to "an entirely new increased level of market risk in the highly complex derivative market." BCSS sued Regions Bank and Morgan Keegan asserting that Regions falsely represented to BCSS that swap agreements fixed BCSS's interest rates on all the BCSS debt that had been financed through the VRDNs. Following a hearing on the motions to compel arbitration, the trial court entered an order in which it granted the motions to compel arbitration as to BCSS's claims concerning the credit agreements but denied the motions to compel arbitration as to BCSS's claims concerning the failure of the swap transactions to provide a fixed interest rate. The trial court reasoned that the "Jurisdiction" clause in a master agreement, in combination with its merger clause, "prevent[ed] any argument that the VRDN arbitration agreement applies to disputes concerning the swap agreements" and that those clauses demonstrated that it was "the parties' intention, as it relates to the interest-swap agreement and any transaction related to that agreement, that the parties would not arbitrate but instead [any dispute] would be resolved by proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction." Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Regions presented evidence of the existence of a contract requiring arbitration of the disputes at issue. The Court reversed the order of the trial court denying the motions to compel arbitration of BCSS's claims concerning the master agreement and the swap agreement and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Regions Bank v. Baldwin County Sewer Service, LLC " on Justia Law

Appellant Loan Modification Group, Inc. (LMG) appealed from a jury verdict awarding $414,000 in damages against LMG for breach of partnership duties and responsibilities owed to Appellee, Lisa Reed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the jury was entitled to find that although Reed and LMG's partnership was formed in anticipation of and carried out in accordance with the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), it could be fully performed within one year and need not last for the entire four-year duration of HAMP, and thus, the jury could have reasonably rejected application of the Statute of Frauds; (2) the evidence supported the jury's finding that a partnership existed, whether based on an express oral partnership agreement or on an implied partnership agreement; (3) having found that the partnership was never terminated and that LMG breached its fiduciary duties, the jury's damages award was proper; and (4) there was adequate evidentiary support to sustain the jury's damages award. View "Loan Modification Group, Inc. v. Reed" on Justia Law

Appellant was among a number of homeowners in multiple states claiming that their mortgage companies wrongfully demanded an increase in flood insurance coverage to levels beyond the amounts required by their mortgages. In this case, the First Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the pertinent mortgage provision explicitly gave the lender discretion to prescribe the amount of flood insurance. However, the Court held that the district court dismissal of Appellant's complaint must be vacated, as (1) a supplemental document given to Appellant at her real estate closing entitled "Flood Insurance Notification" reasonably may be read to state that the mandatory amount of flood insurance imposed at that time would remain unchanged for the duration of the mortgage; and (2) given the ambiguity as to the Lender's authority to increase the coverage requirement, Appellant was entitled to proceed with her breach of contract and related claims. View "Lass v. Bank of America, N.A." on Justia Law

This putative class action was one of a number of breach-of-contract suits being brought against financial institutions nationwide by mortgagors who claimed that they were improperly forced to increase flood insurance coverage on their properties. The plaintiff in this case asserted that Bank of America's demand that he increase his flood coverage by $46,000 breached both the terms of his mortgage contract and the contract's implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The district court concluded that the pertinent provision of the mortgage unambiguously permitted the lender to require the increased flood coverage and, hence, it granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of dismissal in favor of the Bank, holding that the mortgage was reasonably susceptible to an understanding that supported the plaintiff's breach of contract and implied covenant claims. Remanded. View "Kolbe v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the estate of Tore Myhra, brought suit against Royal Caribbean, seeking damages for Mr. Myhra's injuries and death. It alleged that a bacterial infection that he had acquired while on board Royal Caribbean's vessel had caused the tragic events. On appeal, the estate contended that the forum-selection clause should be invalidated both because it was against the statutorily expressed public policy of the United States and because its terms were not reasonably communicated to the Myhras. The court concluded that 46 U.S.C. 30509(a) did not prevent Royal Caribbean from including the forum-selection clause in the Myhras' contract. Nor did the court perceive any procedural or substantive error in the district court's conclusion that the clause was reasonably communicated to the Myhras. Accordingly, the decision of the district court to dismiss the case was correct and the court affirmed the judgment. View "The Estate Of Tore Myhra v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd." on Justia Law

United HealthCare hired Chimes, a centralized vendor management company, to assist it with the procurement and management of contingent workers. Chimes entered into supplier contracts with New Millennium and Pacific Management, among others, to provide the contingent labor to United HealthCare. New Millennium and Pacific Management brought this putative class action against United HealthCare, alleging that it was liable to them and other suppliers for the unpaid bills as the principal of Chimes. Because Chimes was not an agent of United HealthCare under prevailing Minnesota law, the court affirmed the district court's denial of class certification and grant of summary judgment to United HealthCare. View "New Millennium Consulting, et al v. United Healthcare Services" on Justia Law

Patrick Engineering signed a 2007 contract with the City of Naperville for work on a stormwater management system. Some work was done and some payments were made, but the parties fell into a dispute over “additional services.” Patrick terminated the agreement and sued Naperville, seeking $436,392. The agreement provided that if Naperville made a verbal request for additional services, the engineers were required to confirm that request in writing and were not obligated to perform the changes until authorized in writing. This procedure was not followed; equitable estoppel became the crux of the case. The trial court dismissed. The appellate court reversed. The city did not appeal with respect to claims of quantum meruit and under the Illinois Local Government Prompt Payment Act, which remain pending in the trial court. The supreme court reversed with respect to other claims and reinstated the dismissals. While equitable estoppel may apply against municipalities in extraordinary and compelling circumstances, Illinois courts have never held that apparent authority may be applied against municipalities. To recover in equitable estoppel, plaintiff must allege specific facts showing that municipal officials possessed actual, rather than apparent, authority on which plaintiff reasonably relied.View "Patrick Eng'g v. City of Naperville" on Justia Law

This appeal came before the Supreme Court from a declaratory judgment action brought by Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Idaho (Farm Bureau). Farm Bureau brought suit in response to a claim for insurance benefits filed by the personal representatives of the estate of a deceased policyholder (the Estate). Farm Bureau requested a judgment declaring that the Estate was not an "insured" under the decedent's insurance policy and was therefore not entitled to payment of wrongful death damages under the Policy's underinsured motorist coverage. The district court granted the Estate's motion for summary judgment, determining that Idaho's wrongful death statute, entitled the insured's Estate to recover damages for wrongful death and that the Policy provided coverage for those damages. Farm Bureau appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed: as to the Estate, the Court determined that under the plain language of the wrongful death statute, the Estate was not legally entitled to recover damages for itself, but only to bring an action on behalf of the heirs to recover their damages. "The Estate stepped into [the decedent's] shoes for those claims, and Farm Bureau made those payments to the Estate. Farm Bureau's payment of these legitimate claims under the insurance contract does not constitute a change of position or an admission that coverage exists for other claims. We hold that these payments do not prevent Farm Bureau from arguing that it is not required to pay the Estate for damages that [the decedent] was not legally entitled to recover." View "Farm Bureau v. Estate of Eisenman" on Justia Law