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

Plaintiffs commenced a diversity action against defendant, asserting claims for breach of the insurance contract and for vexatious refusal to pay. Applying Missouri law, the district court granted defendant summary judgment, concluding that the insurance policy at issue unambiguously excluded losses caused by plaintiffs' CEO, a shareholder, and by plaintiffs' COO, a non-shareholder, acting in collusion with the CEO. The court affirmed and held that the Officer-Shareholder exclusion was consistent with Missouri public policy, and in the alternative, the Officer-Shareholder exclusion was unambiguous and excluded plaintiffs' claim.

Plaintiff purchased a security alarm for her home from HSM Electronic Protection Services, Inc. (HSM), which was later purchased by Stanley Convergent Security Solutions (Stanley). Plaintiff sued Stanley, claiming that Stanley did not respond properly to a low-temperature alarm from Gage's home and therefore was liable for over $250,000 in damages for willful and wanton negligence, intentional misconduct, fraud, and misrepresentation. Plaintiff subsequently appealed the district court's denial of her motion and grant of summary judgment in favor of Stanley, contending that the district court applied an incorrect theory of law. The court held that the district court misapplied Minnesota law where the Minnesota Supreme Court's case law recognizing and developing willful and wanton negligence was still valid, provided a precise definition of the claim, and was therefore binding upon the court. Consequently, the court disagreed with the district court's reliance on New York case law applying gross negligence as "instructive" despite there being a "principled distinction between wanton negligence and gross negligence." The court also held that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the operator, who knew of the peril present in plaintiff's home, exercised reasonable and ordinary care in response. Accordingly, summary judgment was not appropriate and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Polysilicon producer MEMC entered in exclusive sales representation agreements with Semi-Materials. Under these agreements, Semi-Materials was to serve as the sales representative for MEMC in China and Korea. Semi-Materials brought suit against MEMC, claiming it was entitled to certain commissions. The court held that, considering the four corners of the agreements at issue, the court could not agree with the district court's conclusion that the agreements clearly and unambiguously limited Semi-Materials to receiving commissions only on those sales which included terms whereby the risk of loss remained with MEMC until the product entered China or South Korea. Because the meaning and intent of that language was uncertain and subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, it was necessary to reverse the grant of partial summary judgment and remand this matter to the district court for trial. The court also held that the evidence presented to the jury at trial supported its finding that MEMC clothed a sales manager with the authority to enter into the agreements with Semi-Materials. Accordingly, MEMC could not show there were no probative facts presented at trial supporting the jury's determination that Semi-Materials reasonably relied upon the sales manager's apparent authority to enter into the agreements. Moreover, the court rejected MEMC's argument that Semi-Materials failed to perform a material obligation to the contracts to provide regular reports to MEMC. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment for MEMC and affirmed its denial of MEMC's judgment as a matter of law.

Appellants appealed the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee on their claim for breach of a 1988 contract between the parties. The district court held that the 1988 contract had been superseded by a subsequent agreement between the parties and appellants' claim for breach of the 1988 contract failed as a matter of law. The court held that because there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether appellants and appellee mutually assented to enter a new contract, the court reversed and remanded.

This case stemmed from an Excess Disability Income Reinsurance Agreement (Treaty). At issue was whether a reinsurance agreement between plaintiff and defendant contained a follow-the-settlements provision. The court held that there was no ambiguity in the Treaty and that it contained a follow-the-settlements provision. The court also held that the statute of limitations barred plaintiff's challenges to several claims submitted by defendant and defendant's conduct did not give rise to tolling under Connecticut law. The court further held that the district court properly granted summary judgment on defendant's counterclaims for breach of contract and for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Plaintiff sued her employer under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), Minn. Stat. 363A.01-43, and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601-54, and asserted other state common law claims including breach of employment contract. Plaintiff subsequently appealed the dismissal of her breach of contract claim with prejudice, the denials of her motions for leave to amend her complaint, the denial of her motion for consideration, and the adverse grant of her MHRA and FMLA claims by the district court. The court did not reach the merits of plaintiff's arguments because any error with respect to the dismissal of the breach of employment contract claim was harmless where plaintiff resigned from her employment with the county and failed to generate a genuine issue of fact as to constructive discharge in the context of her MHRA reprisal claim. The court also held that because plaintiff failed to generate an issue of fact as to whether she suffered a materially adverse employment action, summary judgment was appropriate as to her MHRA retaliation claim. The court further held that summary judgment was properly granted on plaintiff's FMLA interference claim where plaintiff did not contest the district court's finding that she received the full twelve weeks of FMLA leave to which she was entitled each year she requested it. The court finally held that summary judgment was properly granted on plaintiff's FMLA retaliation claim where she failed to generate an issue of fact as to whether she suffered an adverse employment action.

This case involved a fallout of a $3.65 billion Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Minnesota businessman Thomas J. Petters. Appellants, investment funds (collectively, Ritchie), incurred substantial losses as a result of participating in Petters' investment scheme. Ritchie subsequently sued two officers of Petters' companies, alleging that they assisted Petters in getting Ritchie to loan over $100 million to Petters' company. Ritchie's five-count complaint alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1962(a), (c)-(d), common law fraud, and tortious inference with the contract. The court held that the district court erred in concluding that Ritchie's action was barred by a Receivership Order. The court also rejected arguments challenging the sufficiency of Ritchie's pleadings in the common law fraud count and did not to address other arguments related to abstention, lack of causation, and absolute privilege. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings.

Synoran and e-Pin (appellants) appealed from the district court's confirmation of an arbitration award in favor of Wells Fargo, which had prevailed on its claims for breach of contract and for misappropriation of trade secrets. Appellants maintained that the district court lacked jurisdiction to confirm the award, erred in confirming the award, and abused its discretion in denying their motion to amend or terminate a permanent injunction issued as part of the award. The court rejected appellants' claim that Wells Fargo was a citizen of both South Dakota and California and concluded that the district court did not err in determining that it had subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. The court also held that the district court did not err in determining that appellants had waived their right to challenge the award of injunctive relief; in declining to vacate the award on the grounds that the arbitration panel exceeded the scope of its arbitral mandate; and in confirming the award of attorneys' fees against e-Pin. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to terminate or amend the permanent injunction. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Plaintiff and his wife (the Kaplans) filed suit against Mayo Clinic Rochester, Inc., other Mayo entities (collectively, Mayo), and Mayo doctors David Nagorney and Lawrence Burgart, making a number of claims arising out of plaintiff's erroneous diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and plaintiff's surgery based on that diagnosis. The Kaplans subsequently appealed the judgments in favor of Mayo and Dr. Burgart on their negligent-failure-to-diagnose and contract claims. The court held that the error, if any, in admitting a certain medical file, which included insurance documents, into evidence did not affect the Kaplans' substantial rights and the Kaplans were not prejudiced by the district court's decision not to give a limiting instruction. The court agreed with the district court that the Kaplans' assertion that the biopsy slides might have been tampered with was based on rank speculation where they failed to present evidence that the slides had been changed in any way. The court also held that the Kaplans have shown no basis for granting them a new trial on their claim for negligent failure to diagnose. The court held, however, that the district court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law where the Kaplans have offered sufficient evidence in their case-in-chief to support a breach-of-contract claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

The owners of Landmark Towers appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Green Tree Servicing, LLC (Green Tree), permitting Green Tree to vacate office space it subleased from the owners' tenant (DBSI). The lease agreements at issue in this case arose from a complex real estate transaction that DBSI and its affiliates commonly structured in order to generate revenue. DBSI, a tenant in common syndicator, or an affiliate - here DBSI Landmark, LLC - acquired commercial property and leased it to another affiliate - here DBSI Leaseco. The court found that, irrespective of 11 U.S.C. 365(h), principles of contract law dictated that DBSI Leaseco and Green Tree were no longer required to perform their obligations to each under the sublease. The court also found that the sublease contained promises between the tenants in common (TIC) and Green Tree via the attornment provision and therefore, the parties were in privity of contract regardless of their status as master landlord and sublessee. The court further found that the only surviving contractual interest in the sublease was the TIC's right to attornment, which was triggered only when the TIC succeeded to the interest of DBSI Leaseco. Therefore, the sublease did not require Green Tree to attorn to the TIC here.