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

H&R Block appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. At issue was whether H&R Block had the right to terminate two franchise agreements between the parties where the agreements expressly stated that defendants could terminate at any time but only affirmatively allowed H&R Block to terminate for cause. Because the court found under de novo review that the language of the contracts did not unequivocally express the parties' intent for the contracts to last forever, the court reversed the judgment. View "H & R Block Tax Services LLC v. Franklin, et al." on Justia Law

Interstate Bakeries granted licenses to some of its trademarks to Lewis Brothers in certain Illinois territories. Interstate Bakeries subsequently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and later contended that its licensing agreement with Lewis Brothers was an executory contract, subject to assumption or rejection under 11 U.S.C. 365. The bankruptcy court agreed and concluded that the agreement was an executory contract. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that the agreement constituted an executory contract because a material obligation remained. View "Lewis Brothers Bakeries v. Interstate Brands Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought suit against Seagate, alleging a violation of Minnesota Statutes section 181.64, false statements as inducement to entering employment, and a common law claim of promissory estoppel. On appeal, Seagate argued, among other things, that the district court submitted an erroneous jury instruction. Plaintiff cross-appealed, arguing that if a new trial was ordered on the statutory claim, his promissory estoppel claim should likewise be retried. The court concluded that the district court erred in instructing the jury, and thus the court reversed. The court vacated the order dismissing the promissory estoppel claim and remanded for a new trial on both claims. The court also vacated the order granting attorneys' fees. View "Vaidyanathan v. Seagate US LLC, et al." on Justia Law

In a diversity action involving an insurance dispute, Union Electric appealed the district court's grant of EIM's motion to dismiss. Union Electric is a Missouri Utility and EIM is a mutual insurance company incorporated in Barbados and with a principal place of business in Florida. At issue was an insurance contract, which specified that New York law applied, which was drafted by the member insureds, in contrast to the insurer-drafted contracts commonly found in insurance disputes. While the district court correctly determined that M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. provided the standard for evaluating a motion to dismiss based on a contractual forum selection clause, the court reversed and remanded for the district court to consider in the first instance whether Missouri's public policy against the enforcement of mandatory arbitration provisions invalidated the forum selection clause. View "Union Electric Co. v. Energy Ins. Mutual" on Justia Law

Missouri Bank sued OneBeacon for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay. The court held that the district court did not err by granting summary judgment for Missouri Bank on its breach-of-contract claim and rejected OneBeacon's claim that it did not breach Insuring Agreement (D) by denying Missouri Bank's claim because Insuring Agreement (D) did not cover losses resulting from fraudulent faxes. The court also held that the district court's finding that OneBeacon had reasonable cause to deny Missouri Bank's vexatious refusal to pay claim was not clearly erroneous. View "Missouri Bank and Trust Co. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, provider of automated licensing services to state fish and wildlife agencies, sued GreatLodge for fraudulent inducement, among other things, arising out of an acquisition agreement. GreatLodge subsequently appealed the district court's finding for plaintiffs, rescinding the acquisition. The court held that the district court did not err in its credibility determinations or in its findings; in finding that plaintiffs' reliance was justified; and in awarding restitution and avoidance of plaintiffs' scheduled yearly payments to GreatLodge. View "Outdoor Central, Inc., et al. v. GreatLodge.com, Inc." on Justia Law

B&B, a supplier of self-sealing fasteners, sued Fastenal for breach of an exclusive supply agreement, tortious interference with business expectancy, and violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA) based on Fastenal's purchases of self-sealing fasteners from competing suppliers. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering the draft complaint that accompanied B&B's demand letter for the purpose of establishing when the statute of limitations began to run; the four-year statute of limitations applied to B&B's breach of contract claim; the statute-of-limitations barred the breach-of-contract claim; because no reasonable jury could find that B&B was ignorant of the facts surrounding Fastenal's breaching conduct, B&B could not benefit from an equitable exception to the statute of limitations; B&B had no cognizable tortious interference or ADTPA claims; and the attorney's fee award must be affirmed. View "B & B Hardware v. Fastenal Co." on Justia Law

David Fesler, a former sales representative with Whelen Engineering Company, sued Whelen for breach of contract. Fesler alleging that he was an employee of Whelen, that policy documents issued by Whelen applicable to sales representatives created a unilateral contract of employment, and that Whelen breached that unilateral contract of employment by terminating him without just cause and by failing to provide him with notice of substandard performance and an opportunity to cure. The district court granted summary judgment for Whelen. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because Fesler was an independent contractor and not an employee, the policy documents could not have created a unilateral contract. Thus, the district court properly dismissed Fesler's claim for breach of contract. View "Fesler v. Whelen Eng'g Co." on Justia Law

Life Investors Insurance Co. of America filed a breach of contract action against John Corrado and Federal City Region, Inc. (collectively, Carrado) for allegedly breaching a settlement agreement that existed between the parties. Life Investors also sought a declaratory judgment that it had not violated the agreement and that if the agreement was not valid, then Corrado was bound by the original agreement between the parties. The district court determined the agreement was enforceable and that Corrado had violated it. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Life Investors. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded, holding (1) the district court erred by extending the doctrine of ratification based on inapplicable Iowa case law and Restatement sections to a case such as this where Corrado did not argue a circumstance invalidated Corrado's signature on the written contract but instead that Corrado never signed the contract; and (2) accordingly, the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Life Investors. View "Life Investors Ins. Co. v. Fed. City Region, Inc." on Justia Law

Razorback Concrete Company (Razorback) sued Dement Construction Company (Dement) for breach of contract and fraud based on disputes over performance of a concrete supply contract. The district court granted summary judgment to Dement on the fraud claim and partial summary judgment to Dement as to the measure of damages for the breach of contract claim, holding that Razorback was not entitled to recover damages under a lost profits theory. After obtaining a judgment on the contract claim, Razorback appealed the grants of summary judgment. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) granting summary judgment in favor of Dement on Razorback's fraud claim, as Razorback failed to identify any evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Dement knew its representation as false at the time it was made; and (2) granting partial summary judgment to Dement on Razorback's claim for lost provides, holding that Razorback failed to supply evidence creating a fact issue regarding whether it was a lost volume seller or whether damages provided or under Ark. Code Ann. 4-2-708(1) were otherwise inadequate. View "Razorback Concrete Co. v. Dement Constr. Co. " on Justia Law