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

In 2011, the two companies signed an agreement under which Life Plans would broker and Security Life would insure life insurance policies financed through arbitrage. Four months later, Security Life terminated the agreement. Life Plans then sued for breach of contract and of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for refusing to offer the policies. The district court granted summary judgment, reading the contract to grant Security Life the right to terminate at any time. The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding that the evidence presented genuine disputes of material facts. The language of the agreement was ambiguous as to whether Security Life could terminate at will during the first three years. The extrinsic evidence of meaning was in conflict, so summary judgment was not appropriate on the breach of contract claim. The facts are also disputed concerning whether Security Life’s review and approval of the product was required and whether approval was received. The implied covenant claim under Delaware law also should not have been resolved on summary judgment. A reasonable jury could find that Security Life’s conduct was arbitrary and unreasonable and had the effect of denying Life Plans the fruits of its bargain. View "Life Plans Inc. v. Sec. Life of Denver Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff produced the motion picture The Merry Gentleman, which was released in 2009. Despite some critical acclaim, the film was a commercial flop, for which the plaintiff blames Michael Keaton, the film’s lead actor and director. It filed a breach of contract action against Keaton and Keaton’s “loan-out company” that he uses for professional contracting, alleging that Keaton failed to timely prepare the first cut of the film; submitted an incomplete first cut; submitted a revised cut that was not ready to watch; communicated directly with Sundance Film Festival and threatened to boycott the festival if it did not accept his director’s cut instead of the producers’ preferred cut; failed to cooperate with the producers during the post-production process; and failed to promote the film. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Keaton, agreeing that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could find that Keaton’s alleged breaches caused the damages sought: all $5.5 million spent producing the movie. View "Merry Gentleman, LLC v. George & Leona Prods., Inc." on Justia Law

Child Craft manufactured furniture. Bienias owns Summit. The parties had a long-standing business relationship. Child Craft contracted with Summit to supply raw wood for a planned line of high-end baby furniture, the “Vogue Line.” Summit sourced the goods from an Indonesian manufacturer, Cita. At Bienias’s request, Child Craft did not have direct contact with Cita. In 2008-2009 Child Craft issued purchase orders to Summit, worth about $90,000. Each included detailed specifications, including that the moisture content of the wood needed to be between 6% and 8%. The goods never conformed to its specifications, in spite of Bienias’s assurances that they would. Child Craft identified the goods as defective upon receipt and refused to pay for shipments. It spent considerable time trying to re-work the products. Child Craft was never able to sell the Vogue Line and ceased operations in 2009. Summit sued for breach of contract and conversion based on refusal to pay. Child Craft counterclaimed for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation, seeking to $5 million in compensatory damages plus punitive damages of $5 million. Only Child Craft’s counterclaim for negligent misrepresentation against Bienias personally was tried. A judge awarded $2.7 million, against Bienias and Summit. The Seventh Circuit reversed the award. Under Indiana law, a buyer who has received non-conforming goods cannot sue a seller for negligent misrepresentation to avoid the economic loss doctrine, which limits the buyer to contract remedies for purely economic loss. There is no basis for transforming the breach of contract claim into a tort claim to hold the seller’s president personally liable. View "JMB Mfg., Inc. v. Harrison Mfg., LLC." on Justia Law

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