Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

At issue in this appeal was a decision made by Appellee, Office of State Procurement (OSP), rejecting the protest submitted by Appellant, Fatpipe, Inc., of a contract award for the State's purchase of bandwidth equipment. Fatpipe sought judicial review of that decision. The circuit court granted OSP's motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court dismissed Fatpipe's appeal, holding that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to review the decision, as (1) Fatpipe was not among the class of entities entitled to lodge a protest against the contract award, and (2) OSP's decision, which merely determined that Fatpipe's protest could not be heard, was not subject to review under the APA.

In the underlying federal court action, an auto insurer (Insurer) sought a declaratory judgment that it had validly denied Insured's underinsured motorist (UIM) claim. Insured was injured while a passenger on a motorcycle driven by her husband, who had a motorcycle insurance policy with Insurer. Insured counterclaimed for breach of contract and bad faith. The U.S. district court certified several questions to the state Supreme Court. The Court held (1) Ariz. Rev. Stat. 20-259.01(G) required Insurer to provide UIM coverage for Insured under the auto policy, where Insured's total damages exceeded the amount of her tort recovery from her husband under the husband's motorcycle policy; and (2) Ariz. Rev. Stat. 20-259.01(H) did not permit Insurer to refuse to provide Insured with UIM coverage under her auto policy because she was partially indemnified as a claimant under the liability coverage of the separate motorcycle policy issued by Insurer to Insured's husband, whose negligence contributed to Insured's injuries.

In February, 2002, the Navy awarded GM&W a contract for floor coating at a military base. GM&W subcontracted with FloorPro, which completed the work on February 27, 2002 and billed GM&W. On March 8, the Navy informed GM&W that the work was completed satisfactorily. On April 17, FloorPro informed the Navy’s contracting officer that it had not been paid. GM&W had claims pending and was not sure whether funds that the Navy directly deposited would be available to FloorPro. In April 2002, the Navy and GM&W entered into contract modification providing for mailing to FloorPro of a check payable to GM&W and Floor-Pro. The Navy paid GM&W directly by electronic transfer and informed FloorPro that its recourse was to sue GM&W. In December 2002, FloorPro submitted a claim to the Navy’s contracting officer. On March 27, 2003, FloorPro filed at the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, which awarded $37,500. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that under the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. 7101, ASBCA has no jurisdiction over a claim by a subcontractor. In 2009, FloorPro filed in the Court of Claims, which ruled in favor of FloorPro. The Federal Circuit vacated, ordering dismissal under the six-year limitations period of 28 U.S.C. 2501.

Cassadie and Chris Parish were injured in a motor vehicle accident when their vehicle was struck by an uninsured driver. United Financial Casualty Insurance Company (UFC) provided insurance coverage to the Parishes, including uninsured motorist (UM) coverage. The Parishes, who had two vehicles insured on their UFC policy at the time of the accident, argued they should be permitted to stack the UM benefits provided in their policy. UFC refused, stating that the Parishes' policy did not allow stacking. The Parishes sued seeking declaratory judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of UFC. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting UFC's motion for summary judgment, as, inter alia, the policy was unambiguous and UFC's insurance agreement did not create a reasonable expectation of stacked UM coverage.

The circuit court granted summary judgment to Community Insurance Corporation (CIC) on a claim by the Hartford Union High School Board of Education and the Hartford Union High School District (collectively, the District) that insurance coverage had been created by virtue of CIC's failure to issue a reservation of rights letter during its unsuccessful defense of the District in a contract lawsuit. The court of appeals reversed, holding that CIC was estopped from denying coverage because the District relied on CIC's defense to its detriment and was prejudiced thereby. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the failure to issue a reservation of rights letter cannot be used to defeat, by waiver or estoppel, a coverage clause in an insurance contract that would otherwise justify the insurer's denial of coverage.

Tammy Pepper suffered injuries in a single-vehicle accident when she was struck by a pickup truck owned by her sister and driven by her stepfather. Pepper subsequently sought insurance benefits under three policies. First, Pepper sought and recovered liability benefits from her sister's insurer. Second, Pepper sought and recovered liability benefits from her stepfather's insurer, State Farm. Third, Pepper sought, but did not recover, underinsured motorist coverage under a separate State Farm policy held by her stepfather. State Farm denied that it owed Pepper underinsured motorist coverage under the stepfather's policy on the ground that the terms of that policy excluded the sister's truck from its definition of vehicles eligible for underinsured motorist coverage. The district court granted summary judgment to State Farm, concluding that the exclusion in the stepfather's policy was valid because the exclusion was designed to prevent coverage conversion. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court was correct that Pepper was not entitled to UIM benefits in this case.

Respondents brought this action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against Philip Morris, alleging that Philip Morris's marketing of its cigarettes violated Minnesota's consumer protection statutes. Respondents asserted claims under Minn. Stat. 8.31(3a) and for common law fraud and unjust enrichment. The district court granted Respondents' motion to certify the class. Subsequently, the court granted summary judgment to Philip Morris on the consumer protection claims asserted under section 8.31(3a) and then dismissed the case. The court of appeals affirmed the class certification but reversed the grant of summary judgment and reinstated Respondents' section 8.31(3a) consumer protection claims. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Respondents' consumer protection claims asserted under section 8.31(3a) were previously released; and (2) because all of Respondents' claims had been dismissed, the issue of whether the plaintiff class was properly certified was moot.

In these consolidated cases, the primary issue was whether there was liability insurance coverage for Plaintiffs' injuries resulting from an altercation on the premises of Insured's bar and restaurant. Insurer denied coverage and declined to defend Insured based on its determination that there was no coverage under the terms of the policy. The trial court entered an order finding that the altercation was covered under both the commercial general liability and liquor liability provisions of the policy. The court of appeals ruled that the liquor liability coverage agreement provided coverage for the judgments but that the commercial general liability agreement provided no coverage. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) based on the clear terms of the policy agreement, there was no liability coverage because the incident arose from an assault and battery, which was an excluded cause, and because there was no nonexcluded concurrent cause to provide coverage; and (2) estoppel by judgment did not apply to collaterally estop Insurer from arguing the lack of coverage.

In these consolidated cases, the primary issue was whether there was liability insurance coverage for Plaintiffs' injuries resulting from an altercation on the premises of Insured's bar and restaurant. Insurer denied coverage and declined to defend Insured based on its determination that there was no coverage under the terms of the policy. The trial court entered an order finding that the altercation was covered under both the commercial general liability and liquor liability provisions of the policy. The court of appeals ruled that the liquor liability coverage agreement provided coverage for the judgments but that the commercial general liability agreement provided no coverage. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) based on the clear terms of the policy agreement, there was no liability coverage because the incident arose from an assault and battery, which was an excluded cause, and because there was no nonexcluded concurrent cause to provide coverage; and (2) estoppel by judgment did not apply to collaterally estop Insurer from arguing the lack of coverage.

Appellants appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of American Standard. The district court concluded that appellants were not entitled to recover underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage benefits under four American Standard policies because the tortfeasor's vehicle was not an "underinsured motor vehicle" under the policies' plain language. The court held that the district court correctly concluded that appellants were not entitled to recover under the UIM policies because stacking them did not result in an amount exceeding the tortfeasor's liability. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.