Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, a resident of Massachusetts, challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing claims she brought in November 2009 against the Cadle Company and its corporate sibling CadleRock Joint Venture II for unlawful debt collection under Massachusetts law. In November 2005 Plaintiff entered into a settlement with Defendants and furnished a release. Because the release was valid, at issue was whether, given the release of past claims, anything that occurred in or after November 2005 restored or gave rise to a claim by Plaintiff. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that because Plaintiff was essentially attacking Defendants' pre-release conduct in the present lawsuit, Plaintiff's claims, which ultimately depended on the wrongfulness of the original debt collection efforts, were without merit. View "Pilalas v. The Cadle Co." on Justia Law

Defendant entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with a Union under which Defendant remitted contributions to an array of Union-affiliated benefit funds (the Funds). After the Funds commissioned audits of Defendant's books, the Funds demanded additional remittances for previously unreported work allegedly covered by the CBA. Defendant demurred, and the Funds sued Defendant. The district court awarded Plaintiffs $26,897 referable to covered work performed by a specific employee but denied recovery for other work. In a separate judgment, the court awarded Plaintiffs $34,688 in attorneys' fees. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the First Circuit, holding (1) the appeal was timely as to all issues, and the judgment on the benefits-remittance claim and the judgment awarding attorneys' fees were open to appellate review; (2) Defendant's failure to keep appropriate records concerning work covered by the benefit-remittance provisions of the CBA triggered a burden-shifting paradigm under which Defendant had to show which hours represented covered work and which did not, and here Defendant did not rebut the presumption; and (3) because the district court's fee calculation rested appreciably on the plaintiffs' lack of success in recovering remittances referable to unidentified employees, the fee award required recalculation. View "Int'l Union v. Ray Haluch Gravel Co." on Justia Law

In a 2009 opinion, the Sixth Circuit held that, in a 1998 collective bargaining agreement, CNH agreed to provide health-care benefits to retirees and their spouses for life, but rejected the suggestion that the scope of this commitment in the context of healthcare benefits, as opposed to pension benefits, meant that CNH could make no changes to the healthcare benefits provided to retirees. The court remanded for a determination of reasonableness with respect to CNH’s proposed changes to its retiree healthcare benefits, under which retirees, previously able to choose any doctor without suffering a financial penalty, would be put into a managed-care plan. The court listed three considerations: Does the modified plan provide benefits “reasonably commensurate” with the old plan? Are the proposed changes “reasonable in light of changes in health care”? And are the benefits “roughly consistent with the kinds of benefits provided to current employees”? On remand, the district court granted CNH summary judgment without reaching the reasonableness question or creating a factual record from which the determination could be made on appeal. The Sixth Circuit again remanded.View "Reese v. CNH America LLC" on Justia Law

Innotext represents automotive manufacturers. Stafford is its vice president. Petra is a sales, service, and support company that represents three offshore companies. In the 1990s, automakers outsourced work overseas to reduce labor costs. Stafford began looking for offshore companies that had the ability to manufacture automotive textile products. Stafford later testified that, based on a handshake agreement, he sought to generate business for Petra. After three sales to Johnson Controls, Innotext claimed that its efforts created an opportunity for Petra and sought commissions. The district court granted judgment as a matter of law on all counts. The Sixth Circuit reversed in part, finding that there was sufficient evidence that reasonable minds could differ, but affirmed dismissal of an implied contract claim. View "Innotext Inc. v. Petra'Lex USA Inc." on Justia Law

GenCorp owned a vinyl-manufacturing facility, including hazardous waste management units (RCRA units), which reclaimed solvent waste. Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901, GenCorp was obligated to obtain permits for the units. GenCorp had not received all of the required permits when it agreed to sell the facility. The agreement specified GenCorp’s retained liabilities, and contained a provision requiring each party to indemnify and defend against their retained liabilities. Textileather became the owner in 1990 and decided to discontinue use of the RCRA units. Textileather began the closure process required by Ohio Administrative Code 3745-66; the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) issued several Notices of Deficiency. Textileather challenged the OEPA’s 2001 closure plan and asserted that GenCorp was obligated to indemnify and defend. The district court ruled in favor of GenCorp, holding that, under the agreement, OEPA did not constitute a “third party” and Textileather’s RCRA closure proceedings did not constitute a “claim or action.” The Sixth Circuit reversed in part and directed the district court to enter judgment for Textileather on the legal question of whether the retained liabilities section of the agreement applies. The court affirmed that GenCorp retained only CERCLA claims covered by certain sections. View "Textileather Corp. v. GenCorp Inc." on Justia Law

TMTA obtained a policy, known as the CrimeShield Policy to transfer the risk of employee theft from the TMTA to Hartford. Almost immediately after the parties signed the Policy a TMTA employee began diverting funds into his own accounts from the TMTA Insurance Agency, a limited liability corporation controlled by the TMTA and from which the TMTA receives a significant portion of its income. The Agency is not a named insured under the policy. Hartford took the position that the Agency, not the TMTA, suffered the loss. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court, holding that the Agency a party is not directly covered by the policy, and that the policy does not otherwise provide for the TMTA to recover funds that were diverted from the Agency.View "Tooling, Mfg.& Tech. Ass'n v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Judith Koenig rented a car from a car rental company and was involved in an accident. PurCo sued Koenig to collect damages related to the incident, including damages for loss of the vehicle's use during the time it was being repaired. PurCo sought to measure loss of use damages by using the reasonable rental value of a substitute vehicle. Koenig filed a motion for summary judgment which the trial court granted, holding that PurCo could prevail on its loss of use damages claim only if it suffered actual lost profits. The court of appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment ruling and remanded the case. It agreed with the trial court's conclusion that, in general, the appropriate measure of loss of use damages in a commercial setting is actual lost profits, but concluded the rental agreement in this case altered the measure of loss of use damages and held that PurCo was required to show certain loss prerequisites. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals judgment on different grounds, holding that loss of use damages in a commercial setting may be measured either by actual lost profits or by reasonable rental value. PurCo was entitled to recover loss of use damages irrespective of its actual lost profits. Accordingly, this case was remanded for calculation of the reasonable rental value of a substitute vehicle. View "Koenig v. PurCo Fleet Services, Inc." on Justia Law

Shawn Adel, a former employee of Westgate Resorts, a timeshare company, formed Consumer Protection Group (CPG) to right perceived wrongs stemming from Westgate's offer of certificates to consumers that were virtually irredemable. CPG solicited people who had received certificates to assign their claims to CPG. Westgate sued Adel, claiming intentional interference with existing and potential economic relations, conversion, breach of contract, and violation of the Utah Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Adel and CPG counterclaimed on behalf of 500 claimants, alleging breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and violation of the Utah Consumer Protection Act. The jury awarded actual economic damages of between $5 and $550 for each claimant and awarded each claimant punitive damages of $66,666. The Supreme Court vacated the jury's punitive damages award, holding that the award violated Westgate's procedural due process rights under Philip Morris USA v. Williams because the statements made by CPG's counsel during closing argument created a risk that the jury would improperly consider harm allegedly caused by Westgate to nonparties when it fixed its punitive damages award. Remanded for a new evaluation of the punitive damages award only. View "WestGate Resorts, Ltd. v. Adel" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Defendant committed a breach of a settlement agreement with the town by failing to remove mulch from property owned by Plaintiff. Defendant filed a special motion to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute, contending that the civil claim was intended to retaliate, deter, and punish Defendant solely for engaging in the constitutionally protected activity of petitioning the town. The motion was denied. On interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Defendant failed to meet its required threshold showing that Plaintiff's claim of breach of the settlement agreement was based on Defendant's exercise of its right to petition. View "Marabello v. Boston Bank Corp." on Justia Law

Two physicians who contracted with HMOs refused to accept capitation payments in place of fee-for-service payments, so the HMOs dropped the physicians' contracts. The physicians brought constitutional and antitrust claims against the companies, which the district court rejected on a motion to dismiss. The physicians appealed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) because the appellees were not governmental actors, Appellants' constitutional claims failed; and (2) because the appellees that Appellants contended violated the Sherman Act were not independent firms and were, rather, wholly owned subsidiaries of the same parent company, the appellees could not have violated the Act's conspiracy prohibition. View "Gonzalez-Maldonado v. MMM Health Care, Inc." on Justia Law