Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The Bank of Commerce (Bank) brought an action against SouthGroup Insurance and Financial Services, LLC (SouthGroup) and Norman White, an agent of SouthGroup, for negligent misrepresentations made by White regarding the type of liability insurance coverage they would need to purchase. The trial court granted summary judgment for SouthGroup and White on two grounds: (1) that the Bankâs claims are barred by the statute of limitations; and (2) that the damages sought by the Bank constituted a voluntary payment which may not be recovered under Mississippiâs voluntary payment doctrine. The Bank appealed the trial courtâs decision. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the three-year statute of limitations began to run when the Bank first received notice that it did not have entity coverage on January 18, 2005. When the Bank filed its claim against Defendants on July 17, 2008, the statute of limitations already had run, therefore barring the Bankâs claims against them. The Court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment dismissing the Bank's case.

Dane Shattuck died from injuries after being hit by an automobile. Dane received medical care at Hospital for his injuries. Dane was enrolled in a children's health insurance program (CHIP), administered by the department of public health and human services (DPHHS). Hospital submitted the bill for Dane's care to Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS), which served as third-party administrator of the CHIP program for DPHHS. Hospital then asserted a lien for the full bill amount against recoveries Gail Shattuck, as personal representative of Dane's estate, may obtain against third parties. Shattuck sued Hospital, BCBS, DPHHS, and the State, asserting that Defendants unlawfully acted to avoid application of "made whole" rules and that Hospital could not foreclose the lien because Shattuck had not been made whole. The district court granted partial summary judgment to Shattuck. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) the district court erred by determining that CHIP constitutes insurance and was governed by the made whole doctrine, and (2) the district court did not err by determining that BCBS was not an insurer in its role here and, therefore, was not subject to the made whole statute. Remanded.

Plaintiff purchased a security alarm for her home from HSM Electronic Protection Services, Inc. (HSM), which was later purchased by Stanley Convergent Security Solutions (Stanley). Plaintiff sued Stanley, claiming that Stanley did not respond properly to a low-temperature alarm from Gage's home and therefore was liable for over $250,000 in damages for willful and wanton negligence, intentional misconduct, fraud, and misrepresentation. Plaintiff subsequently appealed the district court's denial of her motion and grant of summary judgment in favor of Stanley, contending that the district court applied an incorrect theory of law. The court held that the district court misapplied Minnesota law where the Minnesota Supreme Court's case law recognizing and developing willful and wanton negligence was still valid, provided a precise definition of the claim, and was therefore binding upon the court. Consequently, the court disagreed with the district court's reliance on New York case law applying gross negligence as "instructive" despite there being a "principled distinction between wanton negligence and gross negligence." The court also held that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the operator, who knew of the peril present in plaintiff's home, exercised reasonable and ordinary care in response. Accordingly, summary judgment was not appropriate and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Polysilicon producer MEMC entered in exclusive sales representation agreements with Semi-Materials. Under these agreements, Semi-Materials was to serve as the sales representative for MEMC in China and Korea. Semi-Materials brought suit against MEMC, claiming it was entitled to certain commissions. The court held that, considering the four corners of the agreements at issue, the court could not agree with the district court's conclusion that the agreements clearly and unambiguously limited Semi-Materials to receiving commissions only on those sales which included terms whereby the risk of loss remained with MEMC until the product entered China or South Korea. Because the meaning and intent of that language was uncertain and subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, it was necessary to reverse the grant of partial summary judgment and remand this matter to the district court for trial. The court also held that the evidence presented to the jury at trial supported its finding that MEMC clothed a sales manager with the authority to enter into the agreements with Semi-Materials. Accordingly, MEMC could not show there were no probative facts presented at trial supporting the jury's determination that Semi-Materials reasonably relied upon the sales manager's apparent authority to enter into the agreements. Moreover, the court rejected MEMC's argument that Semi-Materials failed to perform a material obligation to the contracts to provide regular reports to MEMC. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment for MEMC and affirmed its denial of MEMC's judgment as a matter of law.

Husband and wife were divorced in 2008 and husband subsequently filed a petition for downward modification of his child support obligation. The trial court read a divorce settlement to forbid changes to child support payments below a floor amount, even though the settlement agreement lacked a "clear and express waiver" of the modification right to any degree. The court reversed in light of Varn v. Varn and held that the trial court erred in refusing to allow husband to seek a modification of child support as provided by OCGA 19-6-15(j).

Appellants appealed the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee on their claim for breach of a 1988 contract between the parties. The district court held that the 1988 contract had been superseded by a subsequent agreement between the parties and appellants' claim for breach of the 1988 contract failed as a matter of law. The court held that because there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether appellants and appellee mutually assented to enter a new contract, the court reversed and remanded.

Plaintiff, employee, brought an action against Defendants, an archdiocese and a parish pastor, claiming that their refusal to renew her contract for employment as the principal of the parish school constituted, inter alia, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, breach of implied contract and breach of promissory estoppel. The trial court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the action on the ground that adjudication of Plaintiff's claims called for impermissible judicial interference in the internal governance of the archdiocese with respect to its selection of religious leaders. At issue on appeal was whether the ministerial exception to judicial authority that precludes a court from adjudicating certain religious disputes required dismissal of the action. The Supreme Court first determined it had subject matter jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal, and then reversed the trial court, holding that (1) in considering whether the ministerial exception is applicable in a particular case, a Connecticut state court must follow the Rweyemamu v. Cote standard; and (2) the ministerial exception applied to the various claims in the plaintiff's complaint. Remanded with direction to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint.

A successful Ford dealership in Iowa offered to assist struggling Middleton, Wisconsin dealership. The parties agreed that Iowa's general manager would provide management services to Middleton with compensation to begin after he turned Middleton profitable and also that Iowa would provide capital in exchange for an ownership interest. Negotiations continued after the manager started working at Middleton, but the parties never reached a more specific agreement. The relationship broke down after 11 months because Iowa failed to come forward with the expected cash. Still not earning a profit, Middleton did not pay for the manager's services. After a remand, the district court again entered judgment for Iowa, finding that Middleton became profitable during the manager's tenure and fired him before he had a fair opportunity to restore profitability. The Seventh Circuit reversed, stating that the factual findings were inconsistent and clearly erroneous. Iowa is not entitled to quasi-contractual compensation for services under either quantum meruit or unjust enrichment.

Chevron, the franchisor, brought suit for declaratory judgment against one of its franchised dealers, M&M Petroleum Services, Inc. M&M responded with a counterclaim of its own, a counterclaim that was not only found to be frivolous, but the product of perjury and other misconduct. The court held that had M&M merely defended Chevron's suit, it could not have been held liable for attorneys' fees. The court held, however, that in affirmatively bringing a counterclaim that was reasonably found to be frivilous, M&M opened itself up to liability for attorneys' fees under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 2805(d)(3). Therefore, the district court did not err in determining that Chevron was eligible to recover attorneys' fees, nor did the district court abuse its discretion in determining that M&M's counterclaim was frivolous and awarding attorneys' fees to Chevron under section 2805(d)(3).

In 1996, when their company (LS&H) was bought out, defendants signed confidentiality and non-competition agreements for a term of "12 months after termination of my employment with LS&H;" each was paid $2,500 for signing the agreements, which were assignable and contemplated the sale. Each defendant accepted employment with the buyer, but refused to sign a new noncompetition agreement. They continued to work, even after the buyer merged with OfficeMax, until they were terminated in 2009 and 2010. Each found work doing essentially what they had done in the past. The district court entered a preliminary injunction, prohibiting defendants from selling office supplies. The First Circuit vacated. The contract is unambiguous; the triggering date for the noncompetition provision is termination of employment from LS&H. OfficeMax has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.