Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff John Stuart decided to build a new house on a small farm. He contacted his insurance agent of nineteen years, Defendant Ronald Pittman for "course-of-construction" insurance to cover any problems in the course of building his house. Mr. Pittman discussed the scope of coverage that the policy would provide. Relying on Mr. Pittman's oral assurance of what the policy would cover, Plaintiff agreed to it. Construction started in 2003. Plaintiff received a premium statement, but not a written copy of the policy. An ice storm struck Plaintiff's building project. Plaintiff contacted Mr. Pittman to initiate an insurance claim. Mr. Pittman told Plaintiff that damage should be covered by the policy. In 2004, Plaintiff received a declaration page from Country Mutual Insurance Company, and found that damage to his house was not covered. Plaintiff brought an action against both Mr. Pittman and the Insurance Company alleging breach of the oral "policy" that he and Mr. Pittman agreed to at the onset of the building project. At the conclusion of the trial's evidentiary phase, Defendant moved for a directed verdict, arguing that Plaintiff failed to prove that the oral insurance binder covered his project. The trial court denied the motion, and the jury would later rule in favor of Plaintiff. The verdict was overturned on appeal. The court held that there was no evidence from which a jury could have found in favor of Plaintiff. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Plaintiff argued that the appellate court misinterpreted the Oregon law that required him to prove that the oral binder superseded the "usual exclusions" of the written policy. The Supreme Court found that the written policy was, as a matter of law, deemed to include all terms of the oral binder. Accordingly, the Court reversed the appellate court's decision and affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

A group of homeowners brought suit against respondent, a developer and general contractor. Respondent then filed a third-party complaint against appellant, its subcontractor, pursuant to the indemnity clause in their contract. During trial, the district court granted respondentâs motion for judgment as a matter of law. The jury found respondent ninety-nine percent at fault, and the district court held appellant liable for the resulting judgment. Appellant appealed. At issue was whether an indemnity clause in a construction contract obligates the subcontractor to indemnify the general contractor for its partial negligence for constructional defects, regardless of whether the subcontractor is also negligent. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the indemnification clause in the partiesâ contract did not explicitly or expressly state that appellant would need to indemnify respondent for respondentâs own negligence but linked appellantâs indemnification duties to defects caused by appellant only.

Appellant brought an interlocutory appeal from the circuit courtâs denial of its motion to compel arbitration. The appellee argued that appellantâs appeal was untimely filed. To be timely, appellant was required to file its notice of appeal within thirty days of the order denying the motion to compel arbitration, which was entered on December 28, 2009. At issue was whether appellantâs January 4, 2010 motion to dismiss constituted a post-order motion that would have extended the time for filing the notice of the appeal under Ark. R. of App. P. Civ. 4(b). The Court concluded that because the motion substantively sought to correct procedural defects in a December 21, 2009 motion, the January 4 motion was not a new motion and was treated by the circuit court as one for reconsideration. Because it was a collateral motion, it did not extend the time for filing the notice of appeal. The Court held the appellantâs notice of appeal filed on March 19, 2010 was untimely and dismissed the appeal.

This matter involved a stockholder challenge to a merger in which a third-party strategic aquiror had agreed to merge with the target corporation for consideration valued at $35 per share. Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction and requested that the court delay the target's stockholder vote and enjoin the deal protections for a period of 45-60 days so as to allow the target to seek higher bids. The court first addressed the issue of whether and in what circumstances Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc. applied when merger consideration was split roughly evenly between cash and stock. Based on its analysis, the court held that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their argument that the approximately 50% cash and 50% stock consideration triggered Revlon. Therefore, when the board explored whether to enter into the proposed transaction, which warranted review under Revlon, its fiduciary duties required it to obtain the best value reasonably available to Smurfit-Stone stockholders. The court held, however, that plaintiffs failed to carry their burden to prove they were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, would suffer imminent irreparable harm in injunctive relief was not granted, and were favored by the equities. Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction was denied.

The Plaintiffs in this action were participants and beneficiaries of a life insurance plan offered by Defendant Qwest Communications International. In 2007, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Qwest, arguing that the Plan made certain changes in violation of ERISA. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Qwest. Plaintiffs raised seven issues on appeal to the Tenth Circuit, the sum of which was that the Plan misrepresented certain changes that unreasonably impacted employees' retirement benefits. Upon careful consideration of the arguments and applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit found that any misrepresentations were not material or in violation of ERISA. The Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Plan.

"Homes by George," run by Adelaide and Rick George, developed residential real estate known as "Esther's Estates" in Newton. Homes by George entered into a written contract with Defendant Al Hoyt & Sons, Inc., in which Defendant agreed to perform certain work in connection with the development. Defendant was paid but did not complete the work. Plaintiffs alleged breach of contract and claimed that Defendant violated the State Consumer Protection Act (CPA). Defendant counter-claimed that Plaintiff failed to pay amounts due in accordance with the contract. The trial court bifurcated the proceedings to allow a jury to first determine liability claims. A second trial was held on the contract claims. Plaintiffs won on all liability claims in the first trial, and received damages on its breach of contract and CPA claims at the second. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court. Plaintiffs challenged the amounts of damages they were awarded by the trial court. Defendant argued that the trial court erred in its finding of violations under the CPA, and in its damages awarded to Plaintiffs. Upon careful consideration of the arguments and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court affirmed part and reversed part of the lower court's decision. The Supreme Court found that the grant of damages was appropriate in light of the terms of the contract, the state case law, and the evidence presented at trial. However, the Court questioned how the trial court arrived at the amount of damages. The Court remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings on its damages award to Plaintiffs. The Court affirmed the trial court in all other aspects of its decision.

Plaintiff Denise Perrelli appealed a trial court decision in favor of Defendants Bridget and Paul Pastorelle. Plaintiff believed the last time she sent her car insurance company a check for coverage was in 2005. She believed she had coverage on August 4, 2006, the day she got into an accident with Defendants. Geovanni Velverde, a friend, was driving at the time of the accident. He died of his injuries, and Plaintiff suffered serious injuries. Plaintiff sued Defendants alleging that her injuries were caused by Defendants' negligence. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that as an uninsured motorist, Plaintiff had no right to sue. Upon careful consideration of the arguments and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision. The Court found that under the state's "No Fault Act," a person injured while a passenger in her on uninsured vehicle was barred from suing for her injuries.

Plaintiff sued defendants over whether plaintiff had been fully paid for construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance work performed for defendants. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground, inter alia, that plaintiff was not licensed to do home improvement business in his individual name. At issue was whether plaintiff, by doing business in his own name and not the name on his license, violated Westchester County Administrative Code 863.319(1)(b). The court held that a licensed home improvement contractor who entered into a contract using a name other than the one on his license was not barred from enforcing the contract unless the other party was deceived or otherwise prejudiced by the misnomer. The court also held that the forfeiture of the right to be paid for work done was an excessive penalty in this case for what seemed to have been an inadvertent and harmless violation of the County Code. Accordingly, the order of the appellate division should be reversed with costs and defendants' motion for summary judgment denied.

Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging contract and negligence claims against defendants. Defendants subsequently appealed from a district court order denying its motion under M.R.Civ.P 55(c) to set aside an entry of default and its motion under M.R.Civ.P 60(b) for relief from default judgment. Plaintiff cross-appealed the court's denial of attorney fees. The court held that good cause did not exist to set aside the entry of default where defendants willfully disregarded the judicial process when it failed to answer after being served properly and where defendants had not established that it possessed a meritorious defense that would have completely eliminated its liability. The court also held that no default judgment existed when defendants moved for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) where an interlocutory judgment did not constitute a final judgment order under the rule. The court declined to address the issue raised for the first time on appeal regarding default judgment against defendants. The court further held that the district court correctly denied plaintiff's request for attorney fees where the complaint raised no allegations related to a default on defendants' loan and the trust indenture provision did not entitle either party to attorney fees under these circumstances.

Plaintiff filed a suit against defendant alleging claims of wrongful termination ("Count I"), trade disparagement ("Count II"), breach of contract for failure to negotiate in good faith ("Count III"), breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing ("Count IV"), and fraud ("Count V") arising out of a Creative Services Agreement ("Agreement") entered into between the parties. At issue was whether the district court properly dismissed the five counts asserted by plaintiff's complaint with prejudice and granted defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court held that the district court erred in dismissing Count III against defendant for failure to negotiate in good faith an alleged agreement to develop and launch a Todd Oldham branded line of merchandise to be sold exclusively at defendant's stores where plaintiff alleged three plausible bases for the claim. The court also held that the district court erred in dismissing Count I for declaratory judgment that defendant wrongfully terminated the parties' Agreement, by failing to give notice of plaintiff's alleged breaches and 30 days' opportunity to cure, under which plaintiff's principal, Todd Oldham, was to provide design services to defendant. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the trade disparagement, common law fraud, and breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings.