Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Merchants Bank of Indiana lent substantial amounts to two entities for the purchase of assisted living facilities in Arkansas and Tennessee. The loans were secured by mortgages on the properties as well as personal guaranties executed by three individuals. When the borrowers defaulted on the loans, Merchants initiated federal lawsuits against the guarantors to collect the outstanding debts and, after dismissing the borrowers from those suits, later began foreclosure actions on the mortgaged properties in state courts. Receivers were appointed for the properties, but Merchants had not recovered the loan amounts.After Merchants moved for summary judgment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, the guarantors argued that Indiana’s “One Action” statute (Indiana Code § 32-30-10-10) barred simultaneous suits on the guaranties and foreclosures. The district court, acting on its own, granted summary judgment to the guarantors, finding that the statute applied to guaranties and rendered the waivers in the guaranty contracts unenforceable as contrary to Indiana public policy.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that the scope of Indiana’s One Action statute and the enforceability of waivers in this context were unsettled under Indiana law. Recognizing the ambiguity and the lack of controlling precedent, the Seventh Circuit certified two questions to the Indiana Supreme Court: whether the statute prohibits a lender from foreclosing while simultaneously suing on guaranties in separate proceedings, and, if so, whether such protections may be waived by guarantors. The Seventh Circuit stayed further proceedings in the case pending the Indiana Supreme Court’s response. View "Merchants Bank of Indiana v. Craik" on Justia Law

The Village of Schaumburg owns a hotel and convention center that it alleges has defective exterior walls. In February 2022, it initiated a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against several parties for fraud, breach of warranty, and products liability. In November 2022, the Village added Permasteelisa North America, a subcontractor, as a defendant. About eight months later, the Village sought to compel arbitration of its dispute with Permasteelisa, even though it had not previously requested arbitration in its complaint or before filing suit, and the arbitration clause was contained in a contract between Permasteelisa and the general contractor, not the Village directly.The District Court concluded that by filing a lawsuit and then delaying its request for arbitration, the Village presumptively waived any right to arbitrate it might have had. The Village argued that the lawsuit was filed to avoid the statute of limitations expiring, but the District Court responded that the Village should have requested arbitration at the outset or, at the latest, soon after Permasteelisa’s motion to dismiss was filed. The court found that the combination of filing suit and substantial delay amounted to waiver of any right to arbitrate and denied the Village’s motion to compel arbitration.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the District Court’s decision for abuse of discretion. The appellate court held that the District Court did not err in concluding that the Village waived any right to arbitrate by acting inconsistently with that right through both initiating litigation and delaying the arbitration request. The Seventh Circuit also rejected the argument that a contractual anti-waiver clause could override federal procedural rules governing litigation conduct. The judgment of the District Court was affirmed. View "Village of Schaumburg v Permasteelisa North America" on Justia Law

A group of former shareholders of a reinsurance provider’s parent company acquired the provider’s rights to seek recourse against third parties for losses stemming from a failed reinsurance program. The losses occurred after the provider’s agent advised participation in a structurally unsound London Market program, resulting in significant financial harm. The shareholders, now plaintiffs, alleged that an insurance brokerage firm failed to properly notify the agent’s professional liability insurers of claims arising from these events, as required under agreements between the broker, the agent, and the insurers.After unsuccessful attempts to recover from the provider’s agent and its bankrupt parent company, the plaintiffs notified the agent’s insurers, who denied coverage due to untimely notice. The plaintiffs then filed suit against the brokerage firm in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, asserting claims for professional negligence and breach of contract. The suit was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The district court dismissed the negligence claim and granted summary judgment to the brokerage firm on the contract claim, finding the provider was not a third-party beneficiary to the relevant agreements and the broker owed no duty to the provider.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the provider was not a third-party beneficiary of the agreements between the broker and the agent, as the contracts did not expressly manifest an intent to benefit the provider. The court also held that the broker owed no professional duty to the provider to notify the agent’s insurers of claims. Finally, it concluded that the claims were time-barred under Illinois law. View "Ferguson v Aon Risk Services Companies, Inc." on Justia Law

The case centers on a 2016 traffic accident in Will County, Illinois, involving a semi-tractor operated by Midvest Transport Corporation, pulling a chassis managed by two companies. The driver of the car involved sued multiple defendants: Midvest, its driver, and the chassis companies. All defendants were insured by Northland Insurance Company. Northland appointed separate counsel for its insureds, but the chassis companies (Consolidated) preferred their own attorneys and sought reimbursement from Northland for those legal expenses, also seeking statutory penalties under Illinois law.In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Consolidated sued Northland for declaratory and compensatory relief, alleging breach of contract and seeking penalties under § 155 of the Illinois Insurance Code. The district court initially ruled for Northland, finding no conflict of interest that would entitle Consolidated to independent counsel at Northland's expense. On reconsideration, however, the court found a conflict existed, granted summary judgment for Consolidated on the breach of contract and declaratory relief claims, and awarded $115,000. The district court rejected Consolidated’s claim for penalties, finding Northland did not act vexatiously or unreasonably.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings de novo. It held that Illinois law only creates a narrow exception to an insurer’s right to control the defense where a serious, actual conflict exists between the insurer and the insured. The court found no such conflict here, as Northland’s interests were not at odds with Consolidated’s, and any adversity between insured codefendants did not trigger the right to independent counsel. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment in favor of Consolidated on its breach of contract and declaratory relief claims, and affirmed the judgment in favor of Northland on the § 155 claim. View "Consolidated Chassis Management LLC v Northland Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Two long-term employees of a township senior center lost their jobs when a newly elected board, led by a candidate from the opposing political party, reorganized the center's leadership structure. The plaintiffs, both Republicans, had campaigned for the losing Republican candidate in the local election. After the incoming Democratic supervisor and board took office, they voted to eliminate the plaintiffs' positions as part of a broader reorganization, creating new roles and appointing others, including one individual who had also supported the Republican candidate.After their terminations, the plaintiffs filed suit in Illinois state court, naming the township and certain officials as defendants. They alleged, among other claims, that their First Amendment rights had been violated because their political activity was a motivating factor in their dismissals. The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Following partial dismissal of claims, only the First Amendment retaliation and breach of implied contract claims against the township remained. After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment for the township, finding plaintiffs had not shown that their political activity was a motivating factor in the terminations, nor had they rebutted the township's evidence of legitimate reasons for the reorganization.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs had not produced sufficient evidence that their political activity motivated their terminations. The court found that the undisputed evidence showed neither the new supervisor nor the trustees knew of the plaintiffs' political involvement, and there were valid, non-retaliatory reasons for the personnel changes. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the township. View "Fox v DuPage Township" on Justia Law

Two software development companies became involved in a dispute after a UK bank, Metro Bank PLC, hired one company, Arkeyo LLC, to create software for its coin-counting machines. Years later, as Arkeyo’s product became outdated, Metro Bank engaged Saggezza UK (a subsidiary of Saggezza, Inc.) to build replacement software. During development, Metro Bank provided Saggezza with an Arkeyo-operated touchscreen computer for reference. Arkeyo later alleged that Saggezza, Inc. infringed its copyrights and trade secrets, interfered with its contract and business relationship with Metro Bank, and converted Arkeyo’s property.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment for Saggezza, Inc. on all claims, ruling that Arkeyo did not show Saggezza, Inc. was responsible for the alleged infringement or tortious acts—these, if they occurred, were committed by Saggezza UK, which was not a defendant. The district court also denied Arkeyo’s motions for sanctions and for reconsideration based on purportedly new evidence, and it awarded attorney’s fees to Saggezza, Inc. under federal statutes.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions. The appellate court held that Arkeyo’s copyright claims failed because there was no evidence of copying. The trade secret claims failed due to Arkeyo’s public disclosure of its software and the generic nature of the alleged secrets. The tortious interference claims were rejected because Saggezza’s competitive conduct was not “wrongful” under Illinois law, and the conversion claim failed since Arkeyo did not own or demand the property. The appellate court also affirmed the denial of sanctions, the denial of reconsideration, and the award of attorney’s fees. View "Arkeyo LLC v Saggezza, Inc." on Justia Law

A company that operated as a fixed-base operator at a municipal airport sued the city that owns and operates the airport. The company alleged that the city provided more favorable lease terms and selectively excused certain regulatory requirements for a competing operator, thereby disadvantaging the plaintiff. The city’s leases with the plaintiff and with its competitor differed in several respects, including rent abatement periods, required capital investments, and compliance with fuel storage and insurance requirements. The plaintiff argued that these differences, along with the city’s alleged failure to strictly enforce its own policies and federal grant assurances, constituted both an equal protection violation under a “class-of-one” theory and a breach of contract.The lawsuit was originally filed in Illinois state court, but the city removed it to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff amended its complaint to drop claims against the competitor and proceeded against the city for breach of contract and equal protection violations. After discovery, both sides moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment for the city on both claims, finding that the class-of-one theory did not apply in the context of government contracting and that the contractual documents did not incorporate the policies or grant assurances as enforceable obligations.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that a class-of-one claim under the Equal Protection Clause is not available where a company challenges the terms of its lease or its competitor’s treatment under a different lease, absent any class-based discrimination. The court also held that the city’s policy and grant assurances were not incorporated into the plaintiff’s lease as enforceable contract terms, nor did the law provide a private right to enforce them in this context. The court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the city. View "Joliet Avionics, Inc. v City of Aurora" on Justia Law

A generic drug manufacturer and a brand-name drug company previously settled a patent infringement lawsuit concerning a medication used to treat osteoporosis. As part of their 2018 settlement, the generic manufacturer agreed not to sell its version of the drug until a specified “Entry Date,” and in return, the brand-name company covenanted not to take any action to prevent or delay the approval, launch, or marketing of the generic drug. The agreement did not specify a fixed expiration date for these obligations. Later, after the relevant patents expired in August 2019, the brand-name company submitted a supplemental application to the FDA, obtaining additional regulatory exclusivity that temporarily kept generics—including the plaintiff’s product—off the market.After being unable to enter the market due to this additional exclusivity, the generic manufacturer sued for breach of contract, arguing that the covenants in the settlement agreement required the brand-name company both to waive any exclusivity and not to interfere with its market entry. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana dismissed the case, holding that the agreement and its obligations expired with the patents and therefore could not have been breached after that date.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. It held that the generic manufacturer plausibly alleged breaches of contract terms that may have survived the expiration of the patents, as the settlement agreement did not clearly define its own duration. The court found that, under Indiana law, a contract without a fixed term remains effective for a “reasonable time,” which is a factual question not suitable for resolution on the pleadings. The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v Eli Lilly and Company" on Justia Law

A roofing contractor was sued in Illinois state court by the estates of two individuals who died when a building façade collapsed. The estates alleged that the contractor had negligently performed repairs on the building after it was damaged by a windstorm in August 2020. The repairs were completed by December 2020, and the fatal collapse occurred in April 2022. The contractor sought defense and indemnification from its commercial general liability insurer under a policy that began on February 8, 2022. The insurance policy included a “Prior Work Exclusion” that barred coverage for claims arising from work completed before the policy’s inception date.The insurer filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the contractor in the underlying state lawsuit. The contractor counterclaimed for breach of contract and argued that the exclusion rendered coverage illusory. Both parties moved for judgment on the pleadings. The district court granted judgment to the insurer, holding that the exclusion applied because the work at issue was completed before the policy period and that the exclusion did not render the coverage illusory, as some coverage for completed operations remained.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that, under Illinois law, the Prior Work Exclusion clearly barred coverage for claims arising from work completed prior to February 8, 2022. The court further held that the exclusion did not make completed-operations coverage illusory because the policy still provided coverage for work completed during the policy period. The judgment in favor of the insurer was affirmed. View "Nautilus Insurance Company v Bee Quality Inc." on Justia Law

Black & Veatch Construction, Inc. contracted The Boldt Company as a subcontractor for the assembly of a windfarm in Illinois. The project quickly encountered delays due to late delivery of turbine parts, unsuitable site conditions, and issues with equipment, for which Boldt provided several written notices to Black & Veatch. Despite these notices, Black & Veatch issued multiple default warnings and ultimately terminated Boldt for cause, taking over the remaining work. Boldt sued, claiming wrongful termination and seeking payment for completed work, while Black & Veatch counterclaimed that Boldt breached by failing to perform on time.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of Black & Veatch, ruling that Boldt defaulted by failing to perform on schedule and that Black & Veatch properly terminated the subcontract. At trial, the jury was tasked only with determining damages and awarded Black & Veatch nominal damages of $1. Both parties filed post-trial motions, which the district court denied.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the jury’s nominal damages verdict, finding no reversible error in the district court’s evidentiary rulings or jury instructions. The appellate court also affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to Boldt’s claims for payment for completed work and for Black & Veatch’s alleged failure to provide adequate construction works. However, the Seventh Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment on the wrongful termination claim, finding the subcontract ambiguous about whether Boldt was responsible for delays absent specific notice and that material factual disputes remained. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the wrongful termination claim. View "Boldt Company v Black & Veatch Construction, Inc." on Justia Law