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

Castro-Cortes was working for Astro, a subcontractor of JRJ, when he fell through a hole on the jRJ property. He sued JRJ for personal injury in Illinois state court. After being served in that suit, JRJ’s two members, Panfil and Michelon, filed a report with Nautilus under a general commercial liability policy. Nautilus refused to defend, citing three grounds: that the underlying lawsuit was against JRJ, but the named insureds were Panfil and Michelon; the “Contractor-Subcontracted Work Endorsement;” and the “Employee Exclusion.” The JRJ parties filed a federal suit for breach of contract. On summary judgment, the district court determined that Nautilus breached its duty to defend because there was at least the potential for coverage of the underlying lawsuit. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that it is a close case and that the bar to finding a duty to defend is low. The court construed the language of the exclusions in favor of JRJ, noting that the burden of proving that a claim falls within an exclusion rests on the insurer. View "Panfil v. Nautilus Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Bible defaulted on a loan under the Federal Family Education Loan Program, but entered into a rehabilitation agreement. She remains current on her reduced payments, but a guaranty agency assessed $4,500 in collection costs. Bible’s loan terms were governed by a Stafford Loan Master Promissory Note (MPN), approved by the Department of Education, incorporating the Higher Education Act, and providing for “reasonable collection fees and costs” in default, as defined by regulations promulgated under the Act. Bible sued, alleging breach of contract and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. 1961, arguing that federal regulations prohibit assessment of collection costs and that the guaranty agency committed mail fraud and wire fraud in assessing collection costs despite its representations that her “current collection cost balance” and “current other charges” were zero. The court dismissed, finding both claims “preempted” by the Higher Education Act, which permits collection costs and that Bible had not shown “a scheme to defraud; commission of an act with intent to defraud; or the use of mails or interstate wires in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme.” The Seventh Circuit reversed. The contract claim does not conflict with federal law. The Secretary of Education interprets the regulations to provide that a guaranty agency may not impose collection costs on a borrower who is in default for the first time and has complied with an alternative repayment agreement. Bible’s RICO claim is not preempted. View "Bible v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc." on Justia Law

The Richers filed for bankruptcy. Morehead, who had invested in commercial real estate owned by a trust controlled by Richer, filed an unsecured claim for $945,000 in the proceeding. The Richers filed an adversary action claiming that Morehead’s only lawful interest in the property was to receive a share of the net proceeds of the property if and when it was sold. The bankruptcy judge, the district court, and the Seventh Circuit upheld Morehead’s claim. The 2005 “Equity Participation Agreement” provided no security for Morehead, but did give him “the sole and exclusive option to convert his Participation Interest to a Demand Note payable within one hundred eighty (180) days of conversion.” Four years later, Morehead sent Richer by certified mail, a letter purporting to convert Morehead’s participation interest to a demand note for $700,000 (plus interest), effective the day after the letter was mailed, November 25, 2009—the anniversary date. The court rejected an argument that the letter had to be mailed or otherwise communicated to them on November 25, the anniversary date, neither before nor after. The Agreement provides that “the Conversion Option is exercised on the … anniversary date,” not that communication must occur on that date. View "Richer v. Morehead" on Justia Law

JHM rents commercial laundry machines to Chicago-area apartment buildings. Firestone made four loans to JHM, totaling $254,114.99. JHM defaulted on each. Firestone sued. JHM filed an answer, asserting a counterclaim of promissory estoppel, alleging that after Firestone’s first two loans to JHM, Firestone vice president McAllister had represented that his company “wanted to expand [its] investment in the laundry business,” and that it “would create a $500,000 line of credit” to fund equipment purchases, which “induced JHM into purchasing equipment” that it would not otherwise have purchased and that it was unable to pay for. As a result, JHM’s equipment supplier (Maytag) refused to sell it laundry equipment, resulting in substantial losses. JMH raised affirmative defenses, including promissory estoppel and prior breach of contract. Defense counsel withdrew from the case. JMH did not obtain substitute counsel, so the court granted Firestone default judgment, on grounds that corporations are required to have legal counsel under Illinois law. The court later dismissed the counterclaims as facially implausible and entered summary judgment on a breach of guaranty claim. The Seventh Circuit vacated; the plausibiity standard does not allow a court to question or otherwise disregard nonconclusory factual allegations simply because they seem unlikely. View "Firestone Fin. Corp. v. Meyer" on Justia Law

CentiMark, a commercial roofer, hired Turnell as a laborer in 1978. In 1988 CentiMark promoted him to Chicago District Operations Manager. In his employment agreement, Turnell agreed to a non-disclosure provision and to restrictive covenants that prohibit “engag[ing] … in any Competing Business” during his employment and for two years afterward in any of the “regions and/or divisions and/or territories” in which he “operated” for CentiMark and “solicit[ing] the trade of, or trade with,” any of CentiMark’s “customers or suppliers, or prospective customers or suppliers” during his employment and for two years afterward. Turnell became Senior Vice President and Midwest Regional Manager. The company fired him in 2013, claiming that Turnell had misappropriated company resources and covered up fraudulent billing by his wife's company. Turnell claims the real reasons were his age, health issues, and high compensation. Turnell made little effort to find a job outside commercial roofing, but accepted an offer from Windward Roofing and contacted CentiMark customers. The court found Turnell’s covenants too broad, and entered a preliminary injunction, affirmed by the Seventh Circuit, that “Turnell shall not sell, attempt to sell, or help sell any products or services, or any combination thereof, related to commercial roofing to any person or entity who was a customer of Centimark Corporation as of January 8, 2013 and who is located in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, or Wisconsin” and required CentiMark to post a $250,000 bond. View "Turnell v. Centimark Corp." on Justia Law

Northbound generates and sells life insurance leads, using the brand name “Leadbot,” but ran out of cash with a frozen line of credit and revenue that did not support its overhead. Norvax generates and sells health insurance leads. An asset purchase agreement was signed in 2009, “by and between” Northbound and Leadbot LLC, a subsidiary of Norvax that was formed to purchase the assets of Northbound. Under the agreement, Leadbot LLC was obligated to use the assets it acquired from Northbound in furtherance of the Leadbot brand. The purchase price was not paid in cash. Instead Northbound would receive an “earn-out” calculated as a percentage of the monthly net revenue of Leadbot LLC. The agreement also contained an Illinois choice-of-law clause. Northbound claims that Leadbot LLC and Norvax violated the agreement. The district court dismissed some claims and granted summary judgment for defendants on the remainder. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, reasoning that Norvax was not actually a party to the contract that was allegedly breached, nor is there any basis for holding Norvax liable for any breach by a subsidiary. View "Northbound Grp., Inc. v. Norvax, Inc." on Justia Law

Trovare sought to purchase an affiliated group of family-owned companies. The parties executed a Letter of Intent that included a provision requiring the companies, if they terminated negotiations in writing before a certain date, to pay Trovare a breakup fee of $200,000. Trovare demanded that fee more than a month before the termination date, claiming that the companies intentionally scuttled the deal before the termination date, and then engaged in sham “negotiations” to avoid paying the breakup fee. The companies never sent written notice of termination. Following a remand, the district court concluded and the Seventh Circuit affirmed that the companies had not terminated negotiations before the termination date, and that Trovare was therefore not entitled to the breakup fee. View "Trovare Capital Grp., LLC v. Simkins Indus., Inc." on Justia Law

Employees of Instant, an information-technology staffing firm sign agreements in which they promise not to solicit business from Instant’s clients, not to recruit Instant’s employees to other jobs, and not to disclose the firm’s sensitive information to outsiders. DeFazio was Instant’s Vice President until 2012, when she was fired. She was already cofounding Connect, a new tech-staffing firm, and began working there immediately, along with several coworkers she persuaded to leave Instant. Connect won business from several of Instant’s recent clients. Instant sued DeFazio and others for breaching the restrictive covenants and under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030. DeFazio counterclaimed, alleging that Instant shortchanged her on a bonus. The court concluded that no one is liable to anyone else. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, agreeing that defendants did not leak or otherwise misuse Instant’s proprietary data. Defendants admitted breaching the covenants not to solicit and not to recruit, but in Illinois a restrictive covenant in an employment agreement is valid only if it serves a “legitimate business interest.” The district court concluded that neither covenant did. Tech-staffing firms do not build relationships with clients that would justify restricting their employees from setting out on their own. View "Instant Tech. LLC v. DeFazio" on Justia Law

VDF has trademark and patent rights in “CoffeeBerry” extract and licensed J&J to make and sell CoffeeBerry-based skin-care products. VDF was entitled to “running royalties,” based on the number of sales by the licensee, or by sublicensees. The license permitted J&J to sublicense its rights and required J&J to pay a minimum quarterly royalty if running royalties fell below a specified level. The license could not be assigned without written permission, but it did not forbid a change of control of J&J. J&J sublicensed Stiefel, a manufacturer of dermatological products. Four years later, J&J’s owners sold their interests to Stiefel for $8.5 million. J&J became a Stiefel subsidiary. After buying J&J’s stock, Stiefel engineered amended the sublicence, reducing the alternative minimum royalties that Stiefel owed J&J and diverting part of the license-revenue stream from VDF and J&J to Stiefel. VDF filed suit, alleging de facto assignment and breach of contract. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants with respect to claims that they engineered an unauthorized assignment of the license and that the $8.5 million paid for J&J was really a purchase of J&J’s anticipated sales revenue, so that part of that revenue should have gone to VDF as advance royalties. View "VDF Futureceuticals, Inc. v. Stiefel Labs, Inc." on Justia Law

Procaccio purchased its workers' compensation insurance from West Bend. This litigation concerns three policy years: 2006, 2007, and 2010. Procaccio contends that West Bend’s offset procedure effectively nullified its Illinois Contracting Classification Premium Adjustment Program (ICC) credit for these policy years, resulting in substantial overcharges. The district court agreed and awarded a large sum in damages. The court concluded that the insurance policy contained no agreement to adjust the Schedule Modification credit after the ICC credit became due; West Bend needs parol evidence to prove its version of the parties’ agreement, but the insurance contract was fully integrated so any evidence of an oral understanding with Procaccio’s president is inadmissible; and while West Bend had the unilateral right to issue endorsements, that authority is cabined by contractual and statutory restrictions on its ability to alter its rates. The court further concluded that, even if the Schedule Modification credit was artificially inflated for these policy years, West Bend was not permitted to reduce it based on Procaccio’s ICC credit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "West Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Procaccio Painting & Drywall" on Justia Law