Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

H&R Block appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. At issue was whether H&R Block had the right to terminate two franchise agreements between the parties where the agreements expressly stated that defendants could terminate at any time but only affirmatively allowed H&R Block to terminate for cause. Because the court found under de novo review that the language of the contracts did not unequivocally express the parties' intent for the contracts to last forever, the court reversed the judgment. View "H & R Block Tax Services LLC v. Franklin, et al." on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a related case currently pending in a United Kingdom Litigation, which arose from contractual disputes related to the exploration, development, and operation of oil blocks in Kurdistan, Iraq. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the district court erred by granting a motion to quash certain discovery subpoenas before plaintiff had an opportunity to respond in opposition and by not providing any reasons on the record for its decision. The court vacated the district court's order and remanded with instructions to allow plaintiff a reasonable period to respond to the motion and, thereafter, to provide written or oral reasons for the basis of its ruling. Otherwise, the district court was fully empowered to resolve these discovery disputes in a manner not inconsistent with this opinion. View "Texas Keystone, Inc. v. Prime Natural Resources, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

This case arose from claims asserted by multiple persons against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana (BCBSMT) and Montana Comprehensive Health Association (MCHA). Claimants asserted that while they were fully insured by BCBSMT or MCHA, they submitted claims that the insurers denied based upon exclusions contained in their insurance policies. These exclusions were subsequently disapproved by the Montana Commissioner of Insurance (Commissioner) and the insureds sought the previously-denied benefits. The matter evolved into a class action and three of the claimants, Krista Lucas, Brittany Smith, and Alice Speare, were named class representatives. Subsequently, a settlement was negotiated. Three other claimants, Tyson Pallister, Kevin Budd and Jessica Normandeau, objected to the settlement and sought review by the Second Judicial District Court. The District Court approved the settlement. Pallister, Budd and Normandeau appealed asserting numerous errors by the District Court including but not limited to the court’s error in denying Pallister’s motion to conduct discovery. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded on a discrete issue of discovery and vacated the District Court’s approval of the Settlement Agreement. View "Pallister et al v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Montana" on Justia Law

Mountain West Bank obtained a summary judgment against Helena Christian School and several individual defendants (HCS) following HCS’s default on loans from Mountain West. HCS appealed the decision of the Montana First Judicial District Court. The issues on appeal were: (1) whether the District Court erred by granting Mountain West’s motion for summary judgment without complying with the requirements of 71-1-222, MCA; and (2) whether the District Court erred by entering a judgment that did not comply with 25-9-203, MCA. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, giving the lower court the mandate to compute and state the exact judgment amount, including interest, pertaining to the unsecured loan; for the secured loan, the court must comply with the provisions of 71-1-222, MCA. Upon receipt of notice of the proceeds received in the sheriff’s sale, in the event of a deficiency, the court must determine the appropriate rate of interest vis-a-vis the deficiency, and enter an order of judgment computing and stating the amount owed by Defendants. View "Mtn. West Bank, NA v. Helena Christian School, Inc." on Justia Law

This case arose when American Airlines filed a lawsuit alleging state-law causes of action for breach of contract and tortious interference with prospective business relations. On appeal, Sabre challenged the district court's award of attorney's fees to American pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). The court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to American based on its assessment that Sabre did not have objectively reasonable grounds to believe removal of the case from state court to federal district court was legally proper. View "American Airlines, Inc. v. Sabre, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff James Bannister was injured in a motorcycle accident on the freeway near Oklahoma City in 2009. According to Bannister, he was forced to lay down and slide his motorcycle at a high speed when a car in front of him braked suddenly, that car having been cut off by another car. Bannister slammed into the wall of the freeway and suffered substantial injuries. He did not collide with any other vehicle; neither of the aforementioned cars remained at the scene of the accident; and no witnesses besides Bannister ever gave an account of the crash. Bannister filed an insurance claim with his insurer, defendant State Farm Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm). State Farm denied Bannister’s claim, finding him to be majority at fault in the accident. Bannister subsequently filed suit in Oklahoma state court, and State Farm removed the case to the Western District of Oklahoma. By the time the case went to trial, Bannister sought relief solely on a tort theory: that State Farm violated its duty of good faith and fair dealing in denying his claim. The jury found in favor of Bannister, but the district court granted State Farm’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”), ruling essentially that the evidence showed that State Farm’s denial of Bannister’s claim was based on a reasonable dispute regarding whether Bannister was majority at fault, and that no evidence suggested that further investigation would have undermined the reasonableness of that dispute. Bannister failed to “make a showing that material facts were overlooked or that a more thorough investigation would have produced relevant information” that would have delegitimized the insurer’s dispute of the claim. As such, the Tenth Circuit concluded his inadequate-investigation theory of bad faith was without merit, and JMOL in favor of State Farm was appropriate. View "Bannister v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins Co" on Justia Law

Harley-Davidson had a licensing agreement with a subsidiary of DFS and received notice that the companies had merged. Harley-Davidson did not exercise its right to terminate, but later discovered that DFS had sold unauthorized products bearing the trademark to an unapproved German retailer. Harley-Davidon sent an e-mail saying that it believed DFS was in breach of contract and that it was suspending approval of products. DFS responded in kind. Harley-Davidson then attempted to recover unpaid royalties and to secure from DFS information required under the agreement. DFS refused these attempts, but submitted production samples for a new collection. Harley-Davidson reminded DFS of the termination. DFS advised Harley-Davidson that it had “wrongfully repudiated the License Agreement” and that DFS planned to act unilaterally in accordance with its own views of rights and obligations. The district court granted injunctive relief against DFS, which was attempting to litigate the dispute in Greece. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Harley-Davidson made strong showings that DFS was deliberately breaching a licensing agreement and “has tried numerous legal twists and contortions to try to avoid the legal consequences.” The court rejected an argument that the agreement provision consenting to personal jurisdiction in Wisconsin was not binding on DFS. View "H-D MI, LLC v. Hellenic Duty Free Shops, S.A." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, victims of identity theft, appealed the district court's dismissal of their Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The district court held that among its other deficiencies, the complaint failed to state a cognizable injury. The court found, however, that the complaint stated a cognizable injury for the purposes of standing and as a necessary element of injury in plaintiffs' Florida law claims. The court also concluded that the complaint sufficiently alleged the causation element of negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty. The complaint similarly alleged facts sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss on the restitution/unjust enrichment claim. However, the complaint failed to allege entitlement to relief under Florida law for the claims of negligence per se and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Therefore, the court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Curry, et al. v. AvMed, Inc." on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether mere statements of intent to discontinue a joint venture cause automatic dissolution of the venture as a matter of law. Plaintiff sued Defendant for breach of an oral agreement, alleging that Defendant promised to transfer his interest in the venture to Plaintiff. Defendant denied the existence of this contract. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff. The court of appeals affirmed, reasoning that Defendant's communications to Plaintiff were conclusive evidence of dissolution of the joint venture and warranted summary judgment on the basis that Defendant lacked standing to assert any claims to the venture. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because Defendant produced evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to his intent to dissolve the partnership, the court of appeals erred in affirming summary judgment on that basis. Remanded. View "Buck v. Palmer" on Justia Law

In this subrogation action, appellant Insurer sought to recover payments it made to its Insured for the repair of water damage allegedly caused by the negligence of respondent, the commercial tenant of Insured. The district court dismissed Insurer's subrogation claim as a matter of law, relying on the court of appeals decision in United Fire & Casualty Co. v. Bruggeman. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed after rejecting the rule from Bruggeman, holding that the question of whether an insurer may pursue a subrogation action against the tenant of an insured, when the tenant's negligence caused damage to the insured's property, must be answered by examining the unique facts and circumstances of each case. Remanded. View "RAM Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rusty Rohde" on Justia Law