Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

This case came before the Supreme Court on interlocutory appeal from the Circuit Court of Warren County in which the circuit court affirmed in part and reversed in part the county court's grant of summary judgment for Plaintiff James Hobson, Jr. Defendants Chase Home Finance, LLC, and Priority Trustee Services of Mississippi, LLC (collectively, Chase) appealed the circuit court's affirmance of their liability. Plaintiff cross-appealed the circuit court's order that vacated the county court's award and ordered trial on damages. The dispute arose from Plaintiff's purchase of real property at a foreclosure sale. He tendered a cashier's check to Chase's agent, for which Chase gave Plaintiff a receipt. Approximately two weeks later, Chase returned Plaintiff's check and refused to tender a deed to the property, stating that the foreclosure sale had been cancelled due to the original borrower's reinstatement. Plaintiff sued for breach of contract, arguing that Defendants breach was grossly negligent, and requested actual and punitive damages along with attorney's fees. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the borrower's alleged reinstatement prior to the foreclosure sale created a genuine issue of dispute regarding Chase's liability, and, therefore, the Court held that the circuit court erred in affirming the county court's grant of summary judgment as to liability. Accordingly, the Court reversed the circuit court's judgment and remand to the county court for further proceedings.

The employer sought an early withdrawal from its obligation to make pension contributions to a multiemployer pension fund; it entered into a new collective bargaining agreement, six weeks before expiration of the existing agreement, that abrogated its obligation to make payments to the fund. The fund sued under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1145. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the fund. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the agreement was ambiguous in providing that the employer could not “prospectively” change its obligation.

Plaintiff rented a car, drove 64 miles in one day, refilled the fuel tank, and returned the car to the same location from which he rented the car. In addition to rental and other fees that he does not dispute, he was charged a $13.99 fuel service fee that he challenged by filing a putative class action, claiming breach of contract, fraud, and unjust enrichment. Defendant claimed that, because plaintiff drove fewer than 75 miles during the rental period, to avoid the charge he was required to return the car with a full fuel tank and to submit a receipt. The district court dismissed, finding that the contract was not ambiguous. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, citing the voluntary payment doctrine.

Miriam Salazar purchased an insurance policy from United Automobile Insurance Company and El Sol Insurance Agency (collectively, United), rejecting underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage by signing United's waiver. After Salazar was involved in an accident, Lopez sued United, arguing that United must provide her with UIM coverage because the waiver did not provide the required reasonable explanation of UIM coverage. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of United. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the waiver did not contain a reasonable explanation, and Lopez was therefore entitled to UIM coverage of $25,000 under the UIM statute. The court then remanded the case with instructions for the district court to enter judgment in favor of Lopez in the amount of $25,000. The Supreme Court held that the court of appeals (1) did not err in finding that United failed to provide a reasonable explanation of the purpose of UIM coverage and when it would be applicable; but (2) erred in instructing the district court to enter judgment for Lopez in the amount of $25,000. Remanded with instructions to determine the amount of damages Lopez actually sustained.

Joshuah Farrington struck a moose while driving a vehicle loaned to him by Darling's Rent-a-Car, causing damages. Philadelphia Indemnity, Darling's insurer, compensated Darling's pursuant to the property damage provision of its commercial insurance policy. Philadelphia Indemnity, as Darling' subrogee, subsequently filed a complaint against Farrington, asserting that he breached the rental contract by damaging the vehicle. The Business and Consumer Docket entered judgment in Philadelphia Indemnity's favor. Farrington appealed, contending that he was insured by Darling's insurance policy with Philadelphia Indemnity and that Maine's anti-subrogation rule prohibited Philadelphia Indemnity to bring a claim against him. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that Farrington was not included as an insured within the meaning of the property damage portion of the contract Darling's made with Philadelphia Indemnity.

Husband and Wife divorced in 1989 pursuant to a divorce judgment that incorporated an agreement dividing the parties' property. Husband retired from the Air National Guard in 2002 and began collecting his retirement benefits in 2006. In 2010, Wife filed a motion to modify the divorce judgment, requesting that the district court specify the amount of Husband's military pension to which she was entitled. The court granted the motion and awarded a portion of Husband's benefits to Wife after concluding that the provision of the divorce judgment regarding Husband's military pension was ambiguous. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the district court, holding that the provision awarding Husband his military pension was unambiguous and that Wife's motion to modify was improperly granted. Remanded.

Plaintiffs are personal investment holding corporations owned by two related Panamanian shareholders. Defendants, of who there are two distinct groups, are (1) a related group of banking corporations operating under the umbrella of Banco Santander, which provide banking, investment, and other financial management services; and (2) certain individual officers/employees of Santander. This dispute arose from plaintiff's investment of an undisclosed sum of money with defendants. At issue was whether a district court, having found a valid contract containing an arbitration clause existed, was also required to consider a further challenge to that contract's place within a broader, unexecuted agreement. Having considered those circumstances in light of Granite Rock Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters and other relevant precedent, the court found that the district court properly construed the law regarding arbitrability in dismissing plaintiff's suit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

MoBev appealed the district court's order denying its motion for partial summary judgment and granting Shelton's motion for summary judgment on MoBev's claims for violation of Missouri franchise law. Because the plain language of the Missouri franchise statue at issue unambiguously required that the general definition of "franchise" applied to liquor supplier-wholesaler relationships and the relationship between MoBev and Shelton did not satisfy this definition, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant sells brokerage and investment products and services, typically to registered broker-dealers and investment advisers that trade securities for clients. One of its services, NetExchange Pro, an interface for research and managing brokerage accounts via the Internet, can be used for remote access to market dynamics and customer accounts. A firm may make its clients' personal information, including social security numbers and taxpayer identification numbers, accessible to end-users in NetExchange Pro. Some of defendant's employees also have access to this information. Plaintiff, a brokerage customer with NPC, which made its customer account information accessible in NetExchange Pro, received notice of the company's policy and filed a putative class action, alleging breach of contract, breach of implied contract, negligent breach of contractual duties, and violations of Massachusetts consumer protection laws. The district court dismissed. The First Circuit affirmed. Despite "dire forebodings" about access to personal information, plaintiff failed to state any contractual claim for relief and lacks constitutional standing to assert a violation of any arguably applicable consumer protection law.

Dorn Sprinkler, formed in 1977 and operated by its owner, David, failed to contribute to benefit funds required by its collective bargaining agreement for three months in 2006-2007. Employees organized a work stoppage. Sprinkler went out of business with its required contributions still unpaid. David’s son, Christopher, lead salesman at Sprinkler, had formed a company called Dorn Fire Protection during the 1990s but had not started doing business. Shortly before financial troubles at his father's business, Christopher began operations. The Union submitted a request to arbitrate to Fire Protection under the theory that it is an alter ego of Sprinkler. Fire Protection refused. The district court, finding that Fire Protection is not an alter ego of Sprinkler, granted summary judgment to defendants. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The management structures at the companies were not substantially identical; there was no substantial continuity in employees, customers or equipment. There was no proof of intent to avoid the bargaining agreement.