Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

This negligence and breach of contract action arose out of Plaintiff's fall in one of Defendant's stores. Plaintiff Maureen Habershaw appealed from the superior court's grant of a motion for summary judgment in favor of Defendant, Michaels Stores. At issue on appeal was whether an allegation that a floor was shiny, standing alone, could withstand a challenge to a claim that a plaintiff was injured as a result of a dangerous condition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the superior court did not err when it granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment because there was no issue of material fact about whether a dangerous condition existed at the time of Plaintiff's fall. To the contrary, the Court held, there was a complete absence of any evidence upon which Defendant's negligence could be established.

This case involved the proper interpretation of a "resulting loss" clause in an all-risk insurance policy. It also provided an opportunity to clarify application of the efficient proximate cause rule. The Court of Appeals overturned a jury verdict in favor of the insured, reasoning that the resulting loss clause did not apply in the absence of a secondary covered peril that proximately caused the loss. The court remanded for a jury determination as to the efficient proximate cause of the insured's loss, holding that if the efficient proximate cause was not itself a covered peril, then the policy did not provide coverage. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. Because the loss at issue was not excluded under the policy, coverage exists under the ensuing loss provision. And, because there is no rule of law excluding coverage under an efficient proximate cause analysis, and the insurer was precluded from changing the ground for its denial of coverage, there is no basis for a jury to determine the efficient proximate cause of the loss. Accordingly, the Court reinstated the judgment of the trial court.

The supports for the deck system at Respondents Max and Krista Sprague's house rotted out due to improper construction techniques exposing the supports to the elements. Their claim for homeowners' insurance coverage was denied due to exclusions for rot and defective construction. The trial court granted summary judgment to their insurer, Safeco Insurance Company of America. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the ensuing loss provision provided coverage for the otherwise excluded losses. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the homeowners policies in this case excluded coverage for both rot and defective construction, the deterioration of Respondents' deck were not covered conditions. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the judgment of the trial court.

Appellants Warren and Wynne Kirschbaum appealed a trial court's ruling in favor of Appellee First Quality Carpets, Inc. arising from a dispute they had over carpet installed in 2007. The Kirschbaums argued that the civil division erred in awarding First Quality attorney's fees under 9 V.S.A. 4007(c) of the Prompt Pay Act because that section of the statute authorizing attorney's fees recovery effectively expired in 1996 pursuant to a sunset provision included in the Act. Alternatively, the Kirschbaums argued that because they withheld payment to First Quality in good faith, they were entitled to a directed verdict and that First Quality should not have been awarded attorney's fees under 4007(c). Finally, the Kirschbaums argued that the court erred in denying their counterclaim under the Consumer Fraud Act. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court in all respects.

Appellees, Kristine Kittleson and James Kurtzenacker, purchased property pursuant to a warranty deed that referenced surveys conducted by Davis Surveying. Appellants, Davis Surveying and Kenneth Davis claimed they had nothing to do with Appellees until after they had purchased their property. Appellees sued Appellants, alleging negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and breach of contract based on a third-party beneficiary theory and claiming that because of Clark's incorrect flagging, they trespassed on neighboring property and needed to remove part of their landscaping and construction work. The district court held that Appellants were liable for breach of contract under a third-party beneficiary theory and for negligent misrepresentation. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court erred in determining that Appellees were third-party beneficiaries of a contract for a prior survey, but while the court erred in this reasoning, it reached the right result under Appellees' negligent misrepresentation claim; (2) the court did not err in determining that Appellees were entitled to damages based on negligent misrepresentation; and (3) there was a lack of substantial evidence to support the court's determination that Davis was personally liable to Appellees for work done by Davis Surveying.

Plaintiffs brought their Verified Complaint asserting claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against defendant. J.P.Morgan also asserted a claim for attorneys' fees and costs under an option agreement that J.P. Morgan and defendant entered into, which was the contract central to the dispute. Defendant moved to dismiss pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6). The court held that J.P. Morgan has failed to state a claim that defendant breached the express terms of the Option Agreement and therefore, defendant's motion to dismiss was granted as to Count I. Defendant's motion to dismiss was denied as to Count II because J.P. Morgan's allegations, taken together, were sufficient to state a claim of the implied covenant. Finally, defendant's motion to dismiss was denied as to Count III where J.P. Morgan could eventually be the prevailing party in this action.

Microsoft asserted a total of eight claims, derivatively or directly, against defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, usurpation of corporate opportunity, rescission, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting. Defendants, various companies and an individual associated with the restructuring of Vadem, a computer technology company formed under the laws of the British Virgin Islands, contended that Microsoft lacked standing to bring derivative claims on behalf of Vadem. Defendants also argued, among other things, that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendants and that Microsoft's claims were untimely. The court concluded that Microsoft was required to, but did not, seek leave from the High Court of the British Virgin Islands before bringing a derivative suit on behalf of Vadem. As a result, Microsoft lacked standing as to the six derivative claims it asserted. The court also found that, as to the two remaining counts in the complaint, those claims were time-barred. Therefore, the court granted the motion to dismiss.

Petitioner Alohacare bid for a health and human services contract under Haw. Rev. Stat. 103F but was denied the contract by Respondent, the Department of Human Services. Petitioner protested and later appealed. The lower courts dismissed Petitioner's appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that Petitioner was not entitled to judicial review. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the lower courts, holding (1) Petitioner may not appeal the denial of a contract award by Respondent under the procedures set forth in Haw. Rev. Stat. 103D that afford judicial review for bidders denied protests; (2) however, chapter 103F does not prohibit judicial review of the administrative denial of such matters, and review may be afforded under Haw. Rev. Stat. 632; (3) review and denial of a bidder's protest by Respondent as the purchasing agency and subsequent denial of a request for reconsideration by the chief procurement officer housed in a different executive agency do not assuage separation of powers concerns because review is accomplished only in the executive branch of government; and (4) Petitioner was not denied due process or equal protection by chapter 103F, inasmuch as judicial review may be obtained by way of a declaratory judgment action. Remanded.

State Department of Education (DOE) issued a request for proposals to provide health and human services under contracts pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. 103F. After the DOE rejected the proposal of Petitioner Alaka'i Na Keiki, Inc., Petitioner brought an action against the DOE. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the DOE. The intermediate court of appeals affirmed, concluding that chapter 103F does not allow for judicial review. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the lower courts, holding that the DOE's decisions to reject such proposals were subject to judicial review. The Court then held (1) as construed, chapter 103F was not unconstitutional for violating the separation of powers doctrine; (2) Petitioner's request for a declaratory judgment was moot to the extent the subject contracts had been awarded and their terms expired; (3) Petitioner's claim for negligence by the DOE was barred under the State Tort Liability Act; and (4) Petitioner's claim for injunctive relief, premised on the DOE's alleged faulty administration of the contract process, was moot inasmuch as the Court interpreted such process in chapter 103F as subject to judicial review. Remanded.

Respondent Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company appealed a superior court order that denied its motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of Petitioner Rebecca Rivera. The court ruled that an automobile policy (policy) issued to Rivera’s parents excluded liability coverage but afforded uninsured motorist coverage for injuries Rivera sustained in a single-vehicle accident in Dracut, Massachusetts. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in Petitioner's favor: "the terms of the owned vehicle exclusion appear to remove [Petitioner's vehicle] from the definition of uninsured motor vehicle even though, as to Rivera, there [was] no insurance available. While Liberty Mutual is free to limit the extent of its liability through the use of an exclusion it cannot do so in contravention of statutory provisions or public policy."