Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

An attorney with over two decades of experience brought suit against an insurance company and its agent after his life insurance policy lapsed due to a missed payment. He claimed to have cured the lapse by paying the overdue premium and submitting required information, and alleged that the insurer confirmed reinstatement before later refunding his payment and rescinding the reinstatement. The insurer denied ever reinstating the policy and asserted it had expired by its own terms. The attorney filed suit in state court, alleging breach of contract and other claims. After removal to federal court, the parties mediated and signed a settlement memorandum outlining five essential terms, including a $10,000 payment to the plaintiff and mutual releases. The memorandum stated that final settlement language would use standard contractual terms.After mediation, the plaintiff refused to sign the draft settlement agreement, objecting to a non-reliance clause he claimed was not discussed during mediation. He also began raising new questions about the status of his insurance policy. He moved to vacate the settlement and sought further discovery, while the defendants moved to enforce the settlement. The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri held an evidentiary hearing, which the plaintiff missed, and then granted the defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement and denied the plaintiff’s motions. The plaintiff’s motion for rehearing was also denied.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the settlement memorandum contained all essential terms and that the non-reliance clause in the draft agreement was standard language, not a material new term. The court found no clear error in the district court’s factual findings and no abuse of discretion in denying a new hearing. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment enforcing the settlement. View "Schlecht v. Goldman" on Justia Law

Deepali Tukaye, an Indian cardiologist, was employed by Jack Stephens Heart Institute, which contracted with Conway Regional Medical Center to provide cardiologists. While working at Conway Regional, Tukaye raised concerns about the quality of care provided by a white cardiologist. Following her complaint, the CEO of Conway Regional, Matt Troup, threatened to terminate Jack Stephens’s contract unless Tukaye was reassigned. Jack Stephens did not reassign her, and Tukaye subsequently gave notice to leave her employment. After her notice, Conway Regional renewed its contract with Jack Stephens.Tukaye filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central Division against Troup, the City of Conway, the Health Facilities Board, and John Doe #1, alleging tortious interference with contract, due process violations, and employment discrimination. The district court dismissed her amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim and denied her motion to alter or amend the judgment and to file a second amended complaint.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo and the denial of the Rule 59(e) motion for abuse of discretion. The appellate court limited its review to Tukaye’s tortious interference claim against Troup, as she did not challenge the dismissal of other claims or defendants. The court held that Tukaye’s own action of providing notice to leave constituted a resignation, which was a superseding cause of her harm and defeated the proximate cause element required for tortious interference under Arkansas law. The court also found no manifest error or newly discovered evidence to justify post-judgment relief. Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Tukaye v. Troup" on Justia Law

A security services company and its sole shareholder, who is also its president and CEO, provided security services to two Iowa cities under separate contracts. After the shareholder published a letter criticizing media coverage of law enforcement responses to protests, a local newspaper published articles highlighting his critical comments about protestors and the Black Lives Matter movement. Subsequently, a city council member expressed concerns about the shareholder’s views, and the city council voted unanimously to terminate the company’s contract. The council member also pressured officials in the other city to end their contract with the company. Facing negative publicity, the company voluntarily terminated its second contract to avoid harm to a pending business transaction.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa against the city, the council member, and other council members, alleging First Amendment retaliation, tortious interference with business contracts, and defamation. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims under Rule 12(b)(6). It found that the shareholder lacked standing to assert a First Amendment retaliation claim for injuries to the corporation, and that the corporation failed to state a retaliation claim because only the shareholder engaged in protected speech. The court dismissed the tortious interference claim for lack of sufficient factual allegations and because the contract was terminated voluntarily. The defamation claim was dismissed for failure to identify any actionable statements by the defendants.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the shareholder’s First Amendment retaliation and defamation claims, but directed that these dismissals be without prejudice. The court reversed the dismissal of the corporation’s First Amendment retaliation and tortious interference claims, finding that the complaint alleged sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss, and remanded those claims for further proceedings. View "Conley v. City of West Des Moines" on Justia Law

Pro-Mark Services, Inc., a general contracting construction company, obtained payment and performance bonds from Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company as required by the Miller Act. To facilitate this, Pro-Mark and other indemnitors entered into a General Indemnity Agreement (GIA) with Hartford, assigning certain rights related to bonded contracts. Later, Pro-Mark entered into two substantial business loan agreements with Capital Credit Union (CCU), secured by most of Pro-Mark’s assets, including deposit accounts. Recognizing potential conflicts over asset priorities, Hartford and CCU executed an Intercreditor Collateral Agreement (ICA) to define their respective rights and priorities in Pro-Mark’s assets, distinguishing between “Bank Priority Collateral” and “Surety Priority Collateral,” and specifying how proceeds should be distributed.After Pro-Mark filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of North Dakota, CCU placed an administrative freeze on Pro-Mark’s deposit accounts and moved for relief from the automatic stay to exercise its right of setoff against the funds in those accounts. Hartford objected, claiming a superior interest in the funds based on the GIA and ICA. The bankruptcy court held hearings and, after considering the parties’ briefs and stipulated facts, granted CCU’s motion, allowing it to set off the funds. The bankruptcy court found CCU had met its burden for setoff and determined Hartford did not have a sufficient interest in the deposited funds, focusing on the GIA and North Dakota’s Uniform Commercial Code, and not the ICA.On appeal, the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit held that while the bankruptcy court had authority to adjudicate the priority dispute, it erred by failing to analyze the parties’ respective rights under the ICA, which governed the priority of distributions. The Panel reversed the bankruptcy court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company v. Capital Credit Union" on Justia Law

Nilfisk, Inc. leased a large warehouse building in Springdale, Arkansas from Fort Worth Partners, LLC under an industrial lease that required Nilfisk to maintain property insurance covering the full replacement cost of the building, excluding certain foundation and below-grade structures. In March 2022, a tornado destroyed the building, and Nilfisk’s insurance coverage at the time was significantly less than the full replacement cost required by the lease. Fort Worth Partners sued Nilfisk and its parent company for breach of contract, seeking damages equal to the full replacement cost that would have been covered by adequate insurance.The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment. It denied Nilfisk’s motion and granted Fort Worth Partners’ motion in part, finding Nilfisk had breached its insurance obligation under the lease. The court held a bench trial to determine damages, considering expert testimony from both parties. It awarded Fort Worth Partners damages for the building’s replacement cost, excluding foundation damages per the lease, and also awarded attorney’s fees and costs, with reductions for limited success and prevailing local rates. Nilfisk appealed the denial of summary judgment and the damages award, while Fort Worth Partners cross-appealed aspects of the damages and fee awards.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment for Fort Worth Partners and its denial of Nilfisk’s summary judgment motion. The appellate court held that Fort Worth Partners’ claim was timely, as each deficient insurance policy constituted a separate breach with its own limitations period. The court also affirmed the district court’s interpretation of the lease excluding all foundation damages and upheld the reduction in attorney’s fees. However, it reversed and remanded the damages award for unrebutted costs, instructing the district court to make specific factual findings supporting that portion of the award. View "Fort Worth Partners, LLC v. Nilfisk, Inc." on Justia Law

Two brothers, Tom and Robert Hoffmann, were formerly partners in a family heating and air conditioning business. After Robert bought out Tom’s interest, they settled their disputes in state court with an agreement that included a four-year prohibition on Tom’s use of the “Hoffmann” name in any HVAC business, as well as non-disparagement and non-solicitation clauses. After the four-year period, Tom started a new company, Hoffmann Air Conditioning & Heating, LLC, using the family name. Robert and his company, Hoffmann Brothers Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc., objected and filed suit in federal court, alleging copyright infringement, trademark infringement, unfair competition, and breach of contract.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted summary judgment to Tom and his company on the copyright claim, finding insufficient evidence of damages or a causal link between the alleged infringement and any profits. The remaining claims proceeded to a jury trial, which resulted in a mixed verdict largely favoring Tom and his company on the trademark and unfair competition claims. Both sides sought attorney fees, but the district court denied all requests.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on the copyright claim, holding that the evidence of damages and profits was too speculative. It also upheld the jury instructions and verdict on the trademark claims, finding the instructions properly reflected the law regarding customer sophistication and initial-interest confusion. The court agreed that ambiguity in the settlement agreement’s language about post-four-year use of the Hoffmann name was a factual question for the jury. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of attorney fees to Robert, as he had not personally incurred any fees. The judgment of the district court was affirmed in all respects. View "Hoffmann Bros. Heating & Air v. Hoffmann Air & Heating" on Justia Law

A Nebraska software company entered into a lease agreement with a financial technology firm for the use of proprietary software designed to facilitate electronic transactions. The agreement required the tech firm to pay substantial annual fees upon acceptance of the software, with installation dependent on the tech firm’s cooperation. The parties also entered a separate agreement for preinstallation services, which were paid in full. After initial delays and a temporary suspension due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the tech firm ultimately terminated the project, citing incompatibility of the software with its infrastructure.The software company filed suit in Nebraska state court, alleging breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, seeking damages equal to the unpaid lease fees. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. The district court granted summary judgment for the tech firm, holding that a limitation-of-liability clause in the lease agreement barred the software company from recovering the damages sought. The court found that the clause limited recovery to fees actually paid, not fees owed, and that the clause was neither unconscionable nor rendered the contract meaningless. The court also determined that the Uniform Commercial Code did not apply, and even if it did, the contract did not fail of its essential purpose.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that, under Delaware law, the limitation-of-liability clause was enforceable as written, limiting damages to fees paid and barring recovery of unpaid fees. The court also found the clause was not unconscionable and that the contract did not fail of its essential purpose. The judgment in favor of the tech firm was affirmed. View "Baldwin Hacket and Meeks, Inc. v. Early Warning Services, LLC" on Justia Law

A waste hauling company operating in Kansas City brought suit against a mobile waste compaction business and its franchisor. The waste hauler owns containers that are leased to customers, who sometimes contract separately with the compaction company to compress waste inside those containers. The hauler alleged that the compaction company’s activities damaged its containers and interfered with its business relationships. The hauler sought various forms of relief, including damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and nominal damages, but ultimately disavowed any claim for actual monetary damages, citing a lack of evidence to support such damages.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied the hauler’s request for a temporary restraining order, finding no irreparable harm. During discovery, the hauler admitted it could not identify or quantify any actual damages and stipulated it was not seeking damages outside Kansas City. The district court granted the compaction company’s motion to strike the hauler’s jury demand, holding that the hauler had not presented evidence of compensatory damages, that nominal damages were unavailable under Missouri law for the claims asserted, and that the remaining claims were equitable in nature. After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for the compaction company and its franchisor, finding the hauler failed to prove essential elements of its claims, including actual damages and direct benefit conferred for unjust enrichment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the hauler was not entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment because it failed to present evidence of compensatory damages and nominal damages were not available for its claims under Missouri law. The court also affirmed judgment for the compaction company on the trespass to chattels and unjust enrichment claims, finding the hauler failed to prove dispossession, damages, or a direct benefit conferred. View "Allied Services v. Smash My Trash, LLC" on Justia Law

Michael Lindell, a Minnesota entrepreneur, challenged the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election, claiming to have data proving Chinese interference. Lindell Management LLC (LMC) hosted a "Cyber Symposium" in August 2021, offering a $5 million reward to anyone who could prove the data provided was not from the November 2020 election. Robert Zeidman, a software developer, participated in the challenge, reviewed the data, and concluded it did not contain any information related to the election. The challenge judges disagreed and denied his claim.Zeidman filed for arbitration, and the arbitration panel unanimously found in his favor, ordering LMC to pay the $5 million reward. The panel determined that the contract required participants to prove the data was not related to the election and that Zeidman had met this burden. Zeidman then moved to confirm the arbitration award in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, while LMC sought to vacate it. The district court confirmed the panel's decision, finding that the panel had arguably interpreted and applied the contract.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the arbitration panel had exceeded its authority by using extrinsic evidence to interpret the unambiguous contract terms. The court held that the panel effectively amended the contract by requiring the data to be packet capture data, which violated Minnesota contract law and arbitration precedents. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case with directions to grant LMC's motion to vacate the arbitration award. View "Zeidman v. Lindell Management LLC" on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, K7 Design Group, Inc. (K7) offered to sell hand sanitizer to Walmart, Inc., doing business as Sam’s Club (Sam’s Club). K7 and Sam’s Club discussed and agreed upon the product, price, quantity, and delivery terms for various hand sanitizer products through email communications. K7 delivered over 1,000,000 units of hand sanitizer to Sam’s Club, which paid approximately $17.5 million. However, Sam’s Club did not collect or pay for the remaining hand sanitizer, leading to storage issues for K7.The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas held a jury trial, where the jury found in favor of K7 on its breach of contract claim and awarded $7,157,426.14 in damages. Sam’s Club’s motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial were denied by the district court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Sam’s Club argued that K7 failed to present sufficient evidence of an obligation to pay for the products, the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence, and the district court abused its discretion in instructing the jury. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the communications between K7 and Sam’s Club constituted binding orders under Arkansas’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The court found that the evidence supported the jury’s verdict and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its jury instructions or in denying Sam’s Club’s motions. The court also affirmed the district court’s award of prejudgment interest and attorney fees and costs. View "K7 Design Group, Inc. v. Walmart, Inc." on Justia Law