Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs DISH Network Corporation and DISH Network LLC (Dish) filed a diversity action in the District of Colorado seeking a judgment declaring that Dish's insurers had a duty under Colorado law to defend Dish in a patent infringement suit. The district court held that the underlying complaint did not allege an "advertising injury" under the policies issued to Dish by the five defendant Insurers. The court granted Insurers' motion for summary judgment, and Dish appealed. In its amended complaint, Ronald A. Katz Tech. Licensing (RAKTL, the Plaintiff in the underlying suit) alleged that Dish had infringed one or more claims in each of twenty­ three patents. Applying Colorado law, the district court concluded that a claim for patent infringement could "properly give rise to coverage, or even the specter of coverage, such that an insurer will have a duty to defend." For purposes of the summary judgment motion, the court ruled that RAKTL's reference to "customer service functions" in its complaint was sufficient to allege that Dish engaged in "advertising." The court granted summary judgment for Insurers without addressing the third element of its test-­- causation --or the additional arguments certain insurers had raised under their individual policies. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the RATKL complaint potentially alleged advertising injury arising from the misappropriation of advertising ideas. The Court therefore reversed and remanded for further proceedings: "the scope of advertising injury coverage in this case is at least ambiguous with regard to patent infringement allegations. Although the cases are rare in which an allegedly infringed patent is itself an advertising idea rather than merely an advertised product, ... we hold that '[d]epending on 'the context of the facts and circumstances of th[e] case,' patent infringement can qualify as an advertising injury if the patent 'involve[s] any process or invention which could reasonably be considered an 'advertising idea.'"

In the Chapter 13 case of appellees, Countrywide sought the recovery of attorney's fees incurred in connection with the bankruptcy as well as a determination that compliance with Federal Bankruptcy Procedure 2016 was not necessary for the recovery of such fees. The bankruptcy court held that Countrywide was not entitled to recover its attorney's fees and determined that there was no justiciable issue to resolve regarding the applicability of Bankruptcy Rule 2016 because Countrywide had already complied with the rule. The district court affirmed. The court held that the bankruptcy court and district court misconstrued the provision of the contract governing the availability of attorney's fees and that Countrywide was entitled to recover the fees sought in its Fee Application. Like the bankruptcy and district courts, however, the court declined to address whether Bankruptcy Rule 2016 applied. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

This case arose from an automobile collision in which a police officer employed by the City of Newman was driving a City police car when it was struck by a motor vehicle owned and operated by the insured, who had $25,000 of motor vehicle liability coverage. The City had a Member Coverage Agreement (Agreement) with the Georgia Interlocal Risk Management Agency (GIRMA), established under OCGA 36-85-1 et seq. The officer subsequently sued the insured in tort and served a copy of the complaint on GIRMA to notify GIRMA that it might be held responsible as an uninsured motorist carrier pursuant to OCGA 33-7-11. The court subsequently granted a writ of certiorari to the court of appeals to consider whether that court properly determined that a municipality's motor vehicle liability coverage secured through an interlocal risk management agency was not statutorily obligated to satisfy the requirements for uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage that were applied to commercial insurance policies and private self-insurance plans. The court held that the district court reached the correct conclusion when it determined that there was no authority for the conclusion that an interlocal risk management program such as that offered by GIRMA must include uninsured motorist coverage pursuant to OCGA 33-7-11. Therefore, the Agreement was limited to its express terms and did not include the underinsured motorist protection that the police officer sought. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

John and Betty Vlasin leased the oil and gas rights to their land to Ranch Oil Company. Ranch Oil operated on one-half of the land in the lease and Byron Hummon operated on the other half. After the primary term of the lease expired and the wells stopped producing oil, the Vlasins entered into a new lease agreement with Hummon which encompassed the entirety of their land. Thereafter, Ranch Oil took action to revive one of its dormant wells, relying on a savings provision of the lease, which stated that the lease shall not terminate if the lessee commences operations for drilling a well within sixty days from such cessation. Plaintiffs, the Vlasins and Hummon, brought suit against Ranch Oil for declaratory judgment, trespass, and conversion. The court ruled in favor of Plaintiffs but awarded only nominal damages. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding (1) Ranch Oil's activities on the Vlasins land did not operate so as to extend Ranch Oil's interest in the lease, and (2) Plaintiffs failed to prove they were entitled to damages under trespass and conversion claims, and the Vlasins were entitled only to nominal damages.

McNeese Title, LLC, a Florida limited liability company owned and operated by Richard McNeese, and Richard McNeese and Peggy Owens petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the circuit court to vacate its order denying their motions to dismiss the action filed against them by James Atchison, and to enter an order dismissing the action for lack of in personam jurisdiction. This dispute arose out of Atchison's purchase of two residential lots in the Villa Lago subdivision, which was originally a 14-acre tract of land in the Golf and Beach Resort of Sandestin, Florida. According to Atchison, purchase agreements were sent to him by the "developers," who, he says, "developed, marketed and sold the lots" in the subdivision. Mr. Atchison signed a "compliance agreement limited power of attorney," designating Richard McNeese or Ms. Owens as Atchison's "attorney in fact for [his] use and benefit, ... for the purpose of ... signing or initialing on [his] behalf, any and all documents affecting the closing or refinance of the [lots]." The closing was held in 2005, however, many of the other lots in the subdivision had not closed, contrary to the purchase agreements. Eventually, Atchison sued a number of individuals and entities, including C-D Jones, 331 Partners, McNeese, and Owens, alleging that he had suffered damage as a result of activities conducted by C-D Jones and 331 Partners after the closing. McNeese and Owens unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the McNeeses and Ms. Owens. Accordingly, the Court granted their petition and issued the writ.

Smith's Sports Cycles, Inc. appealed the outcome of a nonjury trial that held in favor of American Suzuki Motor Corporation. Smith's claimed that Suzuki wrongfully terminated the parties' franchise agreement. The trial court conducted a 12-day bench trial. After hearing the evidence, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Suzuki on Smith's breach-of-contract claim, concluding that there was not substantial evidence that Suzuki had breached any provision of the franchise agreement. The trial court also entered a judgment in favor of Suzuki on Smith's claim that Suzuki had violated the Franchise Act. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that "the judgment of the trial court terminating the parties' franchise relationship is due to be affirmed."

A group of investors (Borrowers) bought a golf course by contributing part of the purchase amount in cash and financing the remaining balance through a nonrecourse loan with Community Bank of Nevada (CBN). To facilitate the sale, William Walters entered into a separate guaranty with CBN where he personally guaranteed the loan. Prior to the Borrowers' default and the eventual foreclosure of the golf course, Walters filed a complaint against CBN, asserting causes of action for declaratory relief and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. CBN counterclaimed, asserting breach of guaranty against Walters. The district court granted summary judgment in part to CBN, concluding that no genuine issues of material fact existed as to Walters' guaranty liability to CBN. Walters filed a petition for a writ compelling the district court to vacate its partial summary judgment in favor of CBN and to preclude CBN from recovering any amount from Walters under his guaranty. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding (1) CBN complied with the deficiency application requirements of Nev. Rev. Stat. 40, and (2) CBN was not attempting double recovery because double recovery was not an issue in this case.

This appeal required the court to determine what effect, if any, a retiree benefits-related provision included in an asset purchase agreement had on the acquiring company's retiree benefits plans governed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1000 et seq. The court held that the provision constituted a valid plan amendment. Moreover, the court held that the provision was assumed, not rejected, in bankruptcy. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.

The parties to this lawsuit claimed rights to a punch press used in the manufacturing business of now-defunct Vitco Industries. Plaintiff, Gibraltar Financial Corporation, held a perfected security interest in Vitco's tangible and intangible property, including its equipment. Defendants, several entities including Prestige Equipment, who had acquired the press, and Key Equipment Finance, claimed that the security interest did not cover the press because the press was not Vitco's equipment, but rather, the press had been leased to Vitco by Key Equipment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants after concluding that the lease was a true lease. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the press was leased. The Court noted that no evidence was on the record relating to the economic expectations of Vitco and Key Equipment at the time the transaction was entered into. Remanded.

This action arose out of a dispute between two companies involved in the development of pharmaceuticals. Plaintiff was a biodefense company engaged in the development and commercialization of medical countermeasures against biological and chemical weapons and defendant was also a biodefense company that concentrated on the discovery and development of oral antiviral and antibacterial drugs to treat, prevent, and complement vaccines for high-threat biowarfare agents. The court rejected plaintiff's claim that defendant breached a binding license agreement, but found that defendant did breach its obligations to negotiate in good faith and that defendant was liable to plaintiff under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The court rejected defendant's claim that plaintiff breached its obligation to negotiate in good faith. The court denied plaintiff's claims for specific performance of a license agreement with the terms set forth in the time sheet or, alternatively, for a lump sum award of its expectation damages. The court concluded, however, that plaintiff was entitled to share in any profits relied on from the sale of the drug in question, after an adjustment for the upfront payments it likely would have had to make had the parties negotiated in good faith a license agreement in accordance with the terms of the term sheet. In addition, plaintiff was entitled to recover from defendant a portion of the attorneys' fees and expenses plaintiff incurred in pursuing the action.