Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Real estate purchasers Thomas and Vicki Stevenson appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment that dismissed their unjust enrichment claim against Windermere Capital Group (Windermere), broker to seller 323 Jefferson, LLC (Jefferson). The Stevensons desired to purchase a condominium from Jefferson, and the parties executed a Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement (REPSA) for that purpose. Pursuant to the REPSA, the Stevensons deposited $38,000 earnest money with Jefferson’s broker, Windermere. Upon the Stevensons' written authorization, Windermere transferred the funds to Jefferson. Jefferson then paid Windermere a partial commission pursuant to an Exclusive Seller Representation Agreement which obligated Jefferson to pay Windermere a commission whenever a ready, willing, and able purchaser was procured. Jefferson decided not to sell the condominium to the Stevensons and notified them that it was terminating the REPSA. The REPSA specified remedies upon default by either of the parties to the agreement. In the event that Jefferson failed to comply with any term of the agreement, the Stevensons were entitled to their deposit plus interest. Despite this unambiguous provision, Jefferson failed to return the deposit. The Stevensons filed suit against both Jefferson and Windermere. Their complaint alleged that Jefferson breached the REPSA and also advanced a claim of unjust enrichment against both Jefferson and Windermere. The Stevensons also asserted that the REPSA was unenforceable because it did not contain an adequate legal description. Jefferson settled with the Stevensons, agreeing to refund the Stevensons' earnest money, less the commission paid to Windermere. Windermere answered and cross-claimed against Jefferson, alleging two counts of breach of contract, two counts of unjust enrichment and one count of fraud. Windermere later moved for summary judgment as to the Stevensons’ unjust enrichment claim. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the district court properly exercised its discretion and affirmed the award of summary judgment to Windmere.

Michael Bryant, an owner and employee of Prime Cut Meat Market, assaulted another motorist, Francis Latanowich, in an apparent incident of road rage. Prime Cut and its employees were insured by a policy issued by The Travelers Indemnity Company. Latanowich and his wife sued Bryant and Prime Cut. Prime Cut successfully moved for summary judgment, and Bryant and the Latanowiches agreed to a settlement that included Bryant assigning all of his rights related to potential insurance coverage to the Latanowiches. Travelers later filed a complaint against Bryant and the Latanowiches seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to indemnify Bryant for claims arising from the altercation because Bryant was not an insured under its policy issued to Prime Cut for purposes of that conduct. The superior court concluded that the policy language did not cover the incident, and it granted Travelers's motion for summary judgment. The Latanowiches appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, pursuant to the unambiguous language of the policy, the court correctly concluded that Bryant's assault of Latanowich was not covered by the policy and properly entered summary judgment.

The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) informed Flexdar, Inc. that Flexdar would be liable for the costs of cleaning up trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination on a site where Flexdar previously had operations. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company (State Auto), with whom Flexdar maintained general liability and umbrella insurance policies for the period when the contamination occurred, filed a declaratory judgment action, contending that coverage for the TCE contamination was excluded pursuant to a pollution exclusion in the policies. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Flexdar, concluding that the language of State Auto's pollution exclusion was ambiguous and therefore should be construed against State Auto and in favor of coverage. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the language of the pollution exclusion at issue was ambiguous, and therefore, in accordance with precedent, the policies were construed in favor of coverage.

An employee of a concrete subcontractor was injured in a workplace accident during the construction of a stadium. The employee sought to recover damages for negligence from the project's construction manager by whom she was not employed but whom she contended had a legal duty of care for jobsite-employee safety. The trial court ruled in the employee's favor that the construction manager could be held vicariously liable for the actions of the subcontractor. The Supreme Court granted transfer and reversed the trial court, holding (1) the construction manager was not vicariously liable to the worker for any negligence of the subcontractor because the construction manager and subcontractor did not have the requisite relationship; and (2) the construction manager did not have, either by the terms of its contracts or by its actions, a legal duty of care for jobsite-employee safety, and therefore the construction manager could not be held liable to the employee for negligence. Remanded.

Abacus commenced this action against ADT and Diebold to recover damages under tort and contract theories for losses incurred during a burglary of the bank. The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint with one exception. The court concluded that Abacus had adequately stated a cause of action for breach of contract against ADT for its alleged losses other than losses allegedly sustained by its safe deposit box customers.

The State entered into a contract with IBM, and the Governor signed the contract. IBM later terminated the contract, after which the State filed suit against IBM asserting breach of contract among other claims. IBM then served notice on the Governor to take his testimonial deposition. The State moved for a protective order, asserting that the Governor's deposition was prohibited based on the Governor's unqualified privilege from arrest on civil process, and from obeying any subpoena to testify, pursuant to Ind. Code 34-29-2-1. The trial court granted IBM's motion with certain limitations. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute clearly precludes a deposition of a sitting Governor. The privilege afforded by the statute is absolute, the Court stated, and once it is invoked, any party protected by the privilege may not be compelled to give testimony.

Stephan Odders and Gerald Kerber were former employees of Loparex, a corporation in the release liner industry. Both employees were subject to a one-year noncompetition agreement upon termination of employment. After ceasing employment at Loparex, both employees began employment with MPI Release Technologies, a competitor in the release liner industry. Loparex sued Kerber and Odders (Defendants) in the U.S. district court, seeking injunctive relief under the Illinois Trade Secrets Act and damages resulting from Defendants' breach of the noncompetition agreement. Defendants filed amended answers and counterclaims accusing Loparex of blacklisting in violation of Indiana law. The Supreme Court accepted certification to answer questions of state law and held (1) Wabash Railroad Co. v. Young, which held that Indiana's Blacklisting Statute did not provide a cause of action to individuals who voluntarily leave their employment, is no longer good law and individuals who voluntarily leave employment are not barred from making a claim under the Blacklisting Statute; (2) attorney fees are not an element of compensatory damages under the Blacklisting Statute; and (3) an employer's suit against a former employee to protect trade secrets is not a basis for recovery under the Blacklisting Statute.

Plaintiff-Appellant Sean Weeks appealed a summary judgment that dismissed his claims against Michael Geiermann and Collection Center, Inc. (collectively "Collection Center") for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In 2009, Plaintiff brought this action against the Center for its attempt to collect $3,034.21 in interest on a debt he owed to Medcenter One for clinic and hospital services. Plaintiff obtained medical services from Medcenter's clinic and hospital. According to billing records for the clinic, Plaintiff received services between 2002 and 2008 and was billed $6,752.46, of which his insurance paid $4,698.72. After an insurance adjustment of $1,427.26, Weeks was responsible for $626.48. Weeks paid $453.40, and after another adjustment of $2.03, $171.05 remained unpaid. In July 2009, attorney Geiermann on behalf of Collection Center sent Plaintiff a letter, demanding payment to the hospital for $4,481.22 and to the clinic for $171.05. The letter also demanded $3,003.28 in interest for the hospital and $30.93 in interest for the clinic. The district court granted Collection Center's summary judgment motion and dismissed Plaintiff's action, stating the case was "fairly straightforward." The court held there was no disagreement that Plaintiff had incurred a debt to Medcenter for medical services that remained unpaid which constituted a "legal indebtedness." The court further held that, according to Plaintiff's affidavit, he never received anything in writing from Medcenter indicating any interest would be assessed in the event of nonpayment of this debt after a specified period of time. The court concluded "as a matter of law, that [Collection Center was] rightfully entitled to collect interest from Weeks at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on the legal indebtedness owed by Weeks to [Collection Center], as the assignee of Medcenter One." Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that a "medical services provider," who does not make disclosures required under N.D.C.C. 13-01-15 to charge the "late payment charge" allowed under N.D.C.C. 13-01-14.1, is still entitled to prejudgment interest under N.D.C.C. 47-14-05 at the legal rate of six percent per annum.

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against M&T Bank, alleging that it improperly charged its checking account customers overdraft fees. The district court denied M&T Bank's renewed motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff's claims were not within the scope of the parties' arbitration agreement. The court held that, under the delegation provision, the decision of whether plaintiff's claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreement was a decision for an arbitrator, and the district court erred in making the decision itself. Further, the court believed that it was prudent for the district court to reconsider its unconscionability determination in light of AT&T Mobility LLC v. Conception, so the court did not reach whether the arbitration agreement was unconscionable. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded.

This case arose when R&R sued the Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, a subsidiary of AIG, for breach of contract, unfair competition, and tortious bad faith denial of an insurance claim to recover damages from a wildfire. In Case No. 10-55115, R&R appealed from the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law on its bad faith tort claim. In Case No. 10-55888, R&R appealed from the district court's grant of costs in favor of AIG. The court reversed the district court's grant of judgment in AIG's favor on R&R's bad faith tort claim after addressing the disclosure requirements of Rules 26(a) and 26(e), as well as exclusion of the invoices at issue under Rule 37(c)(1). Therefore, the court remanded for further proceedings. The court's reversal of the district court's judgment on R&R's claims necessitated reversal of the district court's award of costs as well.