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

Plaintiff filed suit against Farmers and American, insurance companies, for breach of contract and various state law violations, seeking recovery for additional loss. The court concluded that plaintiffs' claims for specific performance, unjust enrichment, and bad faith were expressly preempted by federal law; the court affirmed the district court's grant of Farmers' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' extracontractual claims because they were preempted under federal law; and the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Farmers on the ground that plaintiffs failed to file a supplemental proof of loss, a strictly construed requirement, and thus did not satisfy the prerequisites for suing on their additional claims, rejecting plaintiffs' estoppel, duress, repudiation, and due process arguments. Further, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for American, concluding that the American policy was supplemental and plaintiffs could not recover from American for flood damage because they had not exhausted their primary policy with Farmers. View "Gunter, et al. v. Farmers Ins. Co., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Darwin alleging that the insurance company breached its duty to defend and its implied duties of good faith and fair dealing under the policy at issue. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Darwin. The court concluded that Darwin owed no duty to defend plaintiffs because all of the claims at issue fell within the Customer Funds Exclusion; the district court's interpretation of the Customer Funds Exclusion did not violate the illusory coverage doctrine; and the reasonable expectations doctrine did not apply in this case. The court also concluded that the innocent insured doctrine did not obligate Darwin to defend plaintiffs and the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on plaintiffs' claim for breach of the implied contractual duties of good faith and fair dealing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Bethel, II, et al. v. Darwin Select Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The Market sought a declaration that its employment separation agreement with defendant was invalid because defendant had altered the agreement and fraudulently induced the president of the Market to sign it. Defendant counterclaimed to enforce the agreement. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Market where defendant failed to fulfill a condition precedent - returning company property - and such failure meant that the Market had not duty to perform under the agreement. Alternatively, the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking defendant's pleadings based on defendant's deliberate and willful discovery abuses. The district court acted within its discretion to impose sanctions under Rule 37. View "St. Louis Produce Market v. Hughes" on Justia Law

Bruce Martin filed suit against CTB for negligent misrepresentation and breach of express warranty after the power sweeps it purchased from CTB did not work. The court concluded that it's decision in Dannix Painting, LLC v. Sherwin-Williams foreclosed Bruce Martin's argument that the district court erred in concluding that Missouri's economic loss doctrine precluded its negligent misrepresentation claim. Further, the court concluded that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to CTB on Bruce Martin's breach of express warranty claim. Under Indiana law, the court agreed with the district court that Bruce Martin had alleged a defect in the design of the sweeps that was not covered by CTB's warranty against "defects in material and workmanship." Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Bruce Martin Construction, Inc. v. CTB, Inc." on Justia Law

Dannix, a commercial painting contractor, filed suit against SWC alleging that SWC negligently misrepresented that a certain paint product SWC sold was appropriate for a particular painting project. The court concluded that the district court did not err in deciding that Missouri's economic loss doctrine precluded Dannix's negligent misrepresentation claim. The economic loss doctrine prohibited a commercial buyer of goods from seeking to recover in tort for economic losses that were contractual in nature. The court also concluded that the district court correctly dismissed Dannix's misrepresentation complaint where the complaint did not set forth any allegations of property damage to surfaces Dannix painted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Dannix's complaint. View "Dannix Painting v. Sherwin-Williams Co." on Justia Law

This case concerned the 2011 NFL lockout. Active NFL players filed a class action suit (Brady suit) against the NFL, alleging violations of the federal antitrust laws and other claims. Retired NFL players also filed suit against the NFL and its teams, alleging antitrust violations (Eller I suit). After both actions were consolidated, the Brady suit was settled, the players re-designated the NFLPA as their collective bargaining agent, the NFL and NFLPA signed a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) incorporating the settlement terms, the Brady plaintiffs dismissed their action, the lockout ended, and the 2011 NFL season commenced. Carl Eller and other retired NFL players (plaintiffs) then filed this class action (Eller II) against the NFLPA and others. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and plaintiffs appealed, alleging claims for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage under Minnesota law. The court concluded that no reasonable jury could find that plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of a prospective separate contractual relation with the NFL that would provide more than the increased benefits provided in the 2011 CBA. Even if plaintiffs alleged a reasonable expectation of prospective contractual relations or economic advantage with the NFL, plaintiffs failed to allege facts proving that defendants improperly or wrongfully interfered with these advantageous prospects. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Eller, et al. v. NFL Players Assoc., et al." on Justia Law

This case arose when DocMagic, provider of mortgage loan document preparation software, filed various claims against Lenders One, provider of mortgage products and services, stemming from the parties' service contract (Agreement), and Lenders One filed various counterclaims. Per the Agreement, Lenders One agreed to supply DocMagic with a list of all Lenders One's current members and refer, market, and promote DocMagic's products and services to the members. On appeal, the parties dispute the district court's award of attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs. As a preliminary matter, the court used de novo review in order to determine which litigant was the prevailing party and the court applied an abuse of discretion standard regarding the district court's award of fees and costs. On the merits, the court concluded that the district court did not err in designating Lenders One as the prevailing party where the district court considered the totality of the case and reasonably determined the prevailing party for purposes of the parties' contract. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's award of fees and costs. View "DocMagic, Inc. v. The Mortgage Partnership" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an Iowa citizen with a home health care business, merged his business with other home health care providers to form Auxi, Inc., a Delaware corporation. After the merger, ACS acquired control of Auxi and then sold Auxi to HHC. Auxi did not inform plaintiff of the sale and plaintiff received no compensation for his shares of Auxi stock. Plaintiff filed suit against ACS claiming breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. The court concluded that plaintiff pleaded insufficient facts to support a claim that ACS breached its fiduciary duties as a majority shareholder; although plaintiff's complaint alleged damages, it contained no facts identifying the existence of a contract between ACS and plaintiff or its terms; and plaintiff pleaded no facts suggesting that the alleged contract between ACS and HHC manifested an intent to benefit him. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of both claims. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its "considerable discretion," in concluding that it was not required to allow plaintiff to amend the post-judgment complaint where plaintiff never sought to amend until after dismissal, despite being on notice of the need to amend. View "Horras v. American Capital Strategies, Ltd." on Justia Law

Appellants, owners and/or managers of Big Drive Cattle, LLC, appealed the district court's dismissal of their counterclaims against Farm Credit. Big Drive executed various promissory notes and loan agreements with Farm Credit. Farm Credit subsequently filed suit against appellants to enforce appellants' guarantees. Appellants filed counterclaims against Farm Credit for negligence, negligent misrepresentations, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The court concluded that appellants could not rely on the loan agreements, the notes, the guarantees, or any other contracts for the source of the legal duty of accurate reporting they alleged Farm Credit owed to them; appellants' allegations that Farm Credit ignored an "express directive" to remove a particular employee from Big Drive's line of credit was not relevant to their amended counterclaims; and appellants failed to state a claim for negligence where appellants have not plead any plausible duty requiring Farm Credit to provide appellants with accurate reports on the loan collateral, negligent misrepresentation where appellants did not plead the element of intent, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing where appellants failed to plead sufficient specific facts to establish damages arising from Farm Credit's breach. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Page, et al. v. Farm Credit Services, etc., et al." on Justia Law

Residential filed suit against Terrace alleging breach of contract when Terrace refused to repurchase loans Residential purchased from Terrace. The court rejected, under Minnesota law, Terrace's argument that the contract provisions at issue were mere conditions precedent; Terrace identified no ambiguity in the language of the contract which would permit the court to look beyond its plain language; even if it were entitled to do so, Terrace presented no support for its claim that litigation conduct was a more revealing source of the contracting parties' intent than the language of the contract itself; the on-demand repurchase provision did not make the contract unenforceable for lack of consideration; the demand repurchase provision does not make the contract unconscionable; Residential did not act in bad faith; Terrace's waiver and prior breach arguments were rejected, as well as Terrace's arguments regarding other specified loans; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding damages to Residential or in its calculation of Residential's attorneys' fees and costs. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Residential Funding Co. v. Terrace Mortgage Co." on Justia Law