Justia Commercial Law Opinion Summaries

In this case the Kentucky Supreme Court considered whether to adopt the "economic loss rule," which prevents the commercial purchaser of a product from suing in tort to recover for the economic losses arising from the malfunction of the product itself. The case involved a claim to insurers for a damaged piece of machinery. The insurers sued the manufacturers to recover the amount paid, claiming several causes of action including negligence, strict liability, and negligent misrepresentation. The trial court held the economic loss rule barred the tort claims. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's adoption and application of the rule. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding (1) the economic loss rule applies to claims arising from a defective product sold in a commercial transaction, and that the relevant product is the entire item bargained for by the parties and placed in the stream of commerce by the manufacturer; and (2) the economic loss rule applies regardless of whether the product fails over a period of time or destroys itself in a calamitous event, and the rule's application is not limited to negligence and strict liability claims but also encompasses negligent misrepresentation claims.

ALC filed suit against Lamex in commonwealth court under Puerto Rico's Dealers' Contract Act (Law 75), which prohibits a principal from terminating a business relationship with a dealer without just cause. Before service of process, Lamex filed suit in federal court. The federal district court denied Lamex's requests to pierce the corporate veil and for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, but granted Lamex's request for a declaratory judgment absolving it from liability under Law 75, ordered ALC to pay, and ordered the Superior Court of San Juan to release the money ALC consigned. The First Circuit affirmed the imposition of sanctions against ALC and the monetary judgment in favor of Lamex, but vacated the judgment with respect to Lamex's claims for a declaratory judgment and to pierce ALC's corporate veil. The district court erred in failing to provide indisputably clear notice of its intent to consolidate the preliminary injunction hearing with a trial on the merits under Rule 65(a)(2) and, in so doing, abrogated ALC's right to a jury trial.

Plaintiff financed an ice cream hardening system. The lender held title and leased the equipment to plaintiff, but refused to set an end-of-lease purchase price. The final agreement did not refer to an estimate in a side letter or conversations concerning the lease price. Two years after the equipment was installed, plaintiff suggested an early buy-out. When the parties were unable to agree to a price, plaintiff filed suit alleging breach of contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the Utah Unfair Practices Act, promissory estoppel and fraud. The district court rejected other claims, but held that the lender had fraudulently professed, in a side letter, to have estimated 12 percent as the price when, in fact, it had no estimate. The court ordered the lender to convey the equipment and refund to plaintiff part of the payments made under the agreement. The First Circuit affirmed the award of title, but remanded for recalculation of the refund. The transfer of title was an expected outcome of the contract and the evidence supported a finding of fraud.

Defendant is a valet parking business and executed a letter of intent to buy a competing company for $16 millions. An outline of a financing agreement under negotiation with a private equity group contained exclusivity and confidentiality provisions. While that agreement was in effect, the defendant's founder negotiated financing from a company that owned 24.9 % of defendant company. The private equity company sued. The district court entered judgment in favor of defendant. The First Circuit affirmed. The district court properly declined to instruct the jury on the lost opportunity theory of causation and damages; at most, the equity group was deprived of a contractually guaranteed right to prevent defendant from negotiating financing with others. The court properly instructed the jury that the exclusivity provision reference to discussing financing with "any person or entity" was ambiguous.

Petitioner power companies sought a writ of prohibition in connection with a ruling of the circuit court denying petitioners' motion to dismiss a breach of contract complaint filed against them by respondents, Shell Equipment and Shell Energy, as being barred by the statute of limitations. Petitioners argued that the trial court erred in ruling that the limitations period applicable to contracts for the sale of goods under the UCC does not apply to the coal sales agreement they entered into with Shell Equipment. The Supreme Court granted the writ of prohibition, finding that petitioners demonstrated clear legal error for which they were entitled to relief. The Court determined that the subject agreement constituted a sale of goods under W.V. Code 46-2-107(1), and, as a result, the four-year statute of limitations established by the UCC for the sales of goods was controlling. Because respondents did not initiate the lawsuit until after the limitations period had expired, the trial court committed error in failing to grant petitioners' motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs Mark and Karla Gibbs brought claims in the federal district court against, among other defendants, Corinthian Title, Jeffrey Brown, Shelley Hickson, and Christine Tueckes, for civil conspiracy. The above defendants argued that the federal district court did not have in personam jurisdiction over them because Arkansas's long-arm statute does not allow application of conspiracy jurisdiction. The federal district court certified to the Supreme Court the question of whether the use of the conspiracy theory of in personam jurisdiction violates the state's long-arm statute. The Court answered in the negative. Arkansas's long-arm statute does not limit the exercise of personal jurisdiction to certain enumerated circumstances and is therefore limited only by federal constitutional law. Because jurisdiction based on the conspiracy theory does not violate due process, the conspiracy theory of in personam jurisdiction does not violate Arkansas's long-arm statute.

Gary Hoff filed a complaint alleging contract and negligence claims against Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and Lake County Abstract & Title Company. Countrywide failed to appear or answer within the 20 days permitted by Mont. R. Civ. P. 12(a), after which Hoff moved for entry of default against Countrywide. Countrywide later attempted to reverse the default proceedings with a motion to set aside the default pursuant to Mont. R. Civ. P. 55(c) and then a Mont. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to set aside the entry of default for mistake or excusable neglect. The court denied the motions and entered a default judgment against Countrywide. Countrywide appealed and Hoff cross-appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in its judgment against Countrywide because pursuant to Cribb v. Matlock Commc'n, Inc., good cause did not exist to set aside the entry of default, and (2) the district court did not err as Countrywide's 60(b) motion was procedurally defective. Lastly, the Court concluded the district court correctly denied Hoff's request for attorneys fees because the contract did not entitle either party to attorneys fees under the circumstances.

Dennis Deschamps purchased a mobile home park from the estate of Larry Rasmussen. Deschamps financed part of the purchase price through the estate in the form of an indenture note. In the previous case, Deschamps sued the estate, and a jury found the estate was not liable for negligent non-disclosure. In 2007 the estate began the proceedings for a nonjudicial foreclosure on the park after Deschamps stopped making payments on the note. In the instant case, Deschamps again sued the estate, seeking a temporary injunction barring the estate's sale of the property. The district court granted the estate's motion for summary judgment. Deschamps appealed, arguing (1) that the estate is barred from conducting a nonjudicial foreclosure on the property because the nonjudicial foreclosure must have been pleaded as a compulsory counterclaim in the first case; and (2) Deschamps was entitled to raise the affirmative defense of fraud to defeat the estate's nonjudicial foreclosure. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in ruling that the estate was not required to assert nonjudicial foreclosure as a mandatory counterclaim in the first action; and (2) as a plaintiff, Deschamps cannot assert affirmative defenses.

In 2000, Dick Anderson Construction (DAC) entered into a contract with Monroe Construction to do construction work on Paws Up Ranch, which was owned by Monroe Property. When each phase of the construction was completed, Monroe Construction sold that phase to Monroe Property. When DAC was not paid for the last $800,000 of its billings, it filed a construction lien to secure its claim. In 2001, DAC sued Monroe Property to foreclose the lien. On remand to the district court, Monroe Property argued since it was not a party to the construction contract with DAC, it was not a contracting owner against whom the lien could be foreclosed under the construction lien statutes. The district court granted Monroe Property's motion for summary judgment, and DAC appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding the facts of the case demonstrated that Monroe Construction was the actual agent of Monroe Property for the purpose of engaging DAC to complete construction work on the ranch. Therefore, under the statutes, Monroe Property, acting through its agent Monroe Construction, was a contracting owner with regard to the construction contract with DAC.

Plaintiff, an Illinois corporation, filed suit for conversion against a corporation based in South Korea and individuals. Although the defendants were served, there was no formal response. The individual defendants sent a letter asserting that they had no connection to the corporation and requesting dismissal. Several months later the court entered default judgment in the amount of $2,916,332. About a year later the defendants filed appearances and a motion to vacate for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. After noting that jurisdiction can be contested in the original proceeding or in a collateral action, the court concluded that the motion was not untimely. The letter did not constitute an appearance by the individuals and the corporation was not capable of making a pro se appearance. The defendants have submitted affidavits concerning whether they had "minimum contacts" with Illinois that must be considered by the court.