Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Defendants appealed from a Superior Court opinion and order granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs in a dispute over the remedy for a breach of contract. Defendants also appealed from an order awarding plaintiffs attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred in that action. The court found that the parties' agreement was ambiguous and held that the ambiguity preceded an award of summary judgment. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded both matters for further proceedings.

Plaintiff, a former police officer, filed an action against Defendants, the Town of Portsmouth, its then chief of police, and a now retired lieutenant, alleging several causes of action arising from an investigation into Plaintiff's conduct during an officer training exercise. The superior court entered judgment in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) the trial justice properly granted judgment as a matter of law in favor of Defendants on the claims of malicious prosecution and tortious interference with contractual relations; but (2) the trial justice erred by granting Plaintiff's R.I. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the chief of police and lieutenant's counterclaim for defamation arising from an inflammatory letter that Plaintiff submitted to the town council to notify the council of his forthcoming suit in accordance with R.I. Gen. Laws 45-15-5 where (i) absolute privilege did not apply in this instance because the notice required by section 45-15-5 was not part of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, and (ii) baseless claims and allegations made by parties who must provide notice under section 45-15-5 are not protected by absolute immunity under McDonald v. Smith. Remanded.

Plaintiff sued for breach of contract on a construction contract with defendant, for which plaintiff purportedly had fully performed. At issue was whether a Payment Memo constituted a valid contract and thus superseded any previous payment obligations owed to plaintiff by defendant. Based upon the allegations of the complaint, the court found that the Payment Memo failed as a contract for lack of consideration. Therefore, defendant was not entitled to dismissal or judgment on the pleadings and defendant's motion was denied.

In 2000, a fire destroyed a business location of Stone Flood and Fire Restoration Inc., spurring years of litigation with its insurer, Safeco Insurance Company of America. After Stone Flood and its two shareholders, James and Patrice Stone, sued Safeco in 2007, the district court dismissed all claims against Safeco. The court concluded (1) Stone Flood's claims on the insurance policy were filed three days beyond the applicable statute of limitations and were therefore barred; (2) the Stones were not insureds and lacked standing to bring individual claims under the policy; and (3) the Stones lacked standing to bring a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) because their alleged injuries were merely derivative of the corporation's. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) the district court's calculation of the tolling of the limitations period was incorrect and a correct calculation saved Stone Flood's claims under the insurance policy; and (2) the district court properly concluded the Stones were not insureds and lacked standing to sue under the policy, and their claim of IIED failed for lack of a distinct, non-derivative injury. Remanded.

Campbell Farming Corporation had its shares controlled by three shareholders: Stephanie Gately controlled fifty-one percent of the shares, and H. Robert Warren and Joan Crocker controlled the remaining forty-nine percent. Stephanie awarded her son, Robert Gately, who was president of the company, a bonus after a vote by the shareholders. Warren and Crocker filed a derivative and direct action against the company and the Gatelys in federal district court seeking to void the bonus. The district court entered judgment in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court accepted certification from the Tenth Circuit to answer several questions and held (1) the safe harbor provision of Mont. Code Ann. 35-1-462(2)(c) can be extended to cover a conflict-of-interest transaction involving a bonus that lacks consideration and would be void under Montana common law; (2) the business judgment rule does not apply to situations involving a director's conflict-of-interest transaction; and (3) the holding in Daniels v. Thomas, Dean & Hoskins does not apply to the claim challenging Stephanie's role in the director conflict of interest transaction, but the Daniels test does apply to the claim of breach of fiduciary duties alleged by the minority shareholders against Stephanie in her capacity as majority shareholder.

Gary Martin and Lewistown Miller Construction Company entered into a written contract for the construction of a dwelling on Martin's property. When construction was completed, Martin refused to pay additional amounts above the bid price, and LMCC filed a construction lien on the property. LMCC then filed suit, seeking damages for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and foreclosure of the lien. Martin counterclaimed for declaratory relief that the lien was invalid and to quiet title, among other things. The district court (1) granted foreclosure of LMCC's construction lien and awarded damages to LMCC; and (2) denied LMCC's and Martin's request for attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court did not err in ordering foreclosure of the construction lien, and the award of damages was not clearly erroneous; but (2) the district court erred in failing to award statutorily mandated attorney fees to LMCC, as it established its lien. Remanded.

Homeowners sued Contractor for, inter alia, breach of contract, negligence, fraud, and fraudulent concealment, claiming that Contractor negligently failed to perform contractually required work. The district court granted summary judgment in Contractor's favor on all claims. As to the negligence allegations of interest in this appeal, the district court held (1) the economic loss doctrine prevented Homeowners from bringing a tort action under circumstances governed by contract, and (2) the economic loss doctrine supplied an additional bar to Homeonwers' fraud claims. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal to decide whether the economic loss doctrine barred any negligence claims. The Court reversed, holding that the doctrine should not apply in this case where (1) existing caselaw establishes that homeowners' claims against residential contractors may be asserted in tort, contract, or both, depending on the nature of the duty giving rise to each claim; and (2) rationales upholding the economic loss doctrine do not support its adoption for disputes between homeowners and their contractors. Remanded.

On October 4th, SIGA moved for reargument to the remedy ordered in a September 22 Opinion. SIGA contended that the court misapplied the law and misunderstood material facts in awarding PharmAthene an equitable lien on a share of future profits derived from a biodefense pharmaceutical known as ST-246. The court held that it did not misapprehend the law of remedies by imposing an equitable remedy reasonably designed to compensate PharmAthene for its lost expectancy; SIGA had not shown that the September 22 Opinion was the product of either a misapplication of law or a misunderstanding of material fact; and the legal and equitable basis for the structure of the equitable payment stream was the court's authority to provide relief "as justice and good conscience may require" and to remedy in equity what otherwise would amount to unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the court denied SIGA's motion for reargument.

In 2003, the Trust sought group accident and life insurance policies as a benefit for its union members. Consistent with the Trust's request, the broker's RFP specifically sought a policy where the "Trust is the owner of the policy and also [a] beneficiary." Defendant's proposal contained only a summary of proposed terms, expressly cautioned that it was not a contract, and omitted reference to the Trust’s desired beneficiary provision. The policy drafts sent to the Trust did not contain the beneficiary provision the Trust wanted and stated that payment of the required premium after delivery of the policies would constitute acceptance. The Trust's chairman signed and paid the first premium in 2003 In May, 2004, the Trust made a claim on the group life policy. Defendant responded that the terms of the policy required it to pay the full benefit to the decedent's beneficiaries. The Trust terminated the policy, stopped paying premiums, and filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment and rescission of the contract. The district court dismissed the Trust's claims and entered judgment for defendant for $95,059.99 in unpaid premiums. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the parties had an enforceable contract.

The parties in this case signed an arbitration agreement providing that arbitration would occur in accordance with the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) Code of Procedure, but the NAF became unavailable to administer its Code and the arbitration. Defendants moved the circuit court to appoint a substitute arbitrator under Section 5 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The circuit court concluded that a substitute arbitrator could not be appointed under Section 5 because the NAF Code of Procedure was integral to the parties' agreement to arbitrate and the NAF was unavailable to administer its Code. The Supreme Court reversed after considering the language of the arbitration agreement, the language of the NAF Code, and the federal policy expressed in the FAA, holding that Section 5 applied, and that absent some other defense, Section 5 required the appointment of a substitute arbitrator.