Justia U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, a school, was sued by two of the school's donors who sought a return of a monetary gift to the school, claiming that the gift had been induced by misrepresentations. The case settled, and Plaintiff sought defense costs and indemnity under a directors and officers liability insurance policy issued by Defendant. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendant based on a provision in the policy excluding from coverage any losses involving any matter disclosed in connection with "Note 8" of the school's financial statement. Note 8 set forth a description of the gift. Plaintiff appealed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because the language of the policy clearly excluded coverage "in any way involving" the disputed gift, Plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of coverage. View "Clark Sch. for Creative Learning, Inc. v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Robert Smith, a schizophrenic trash collector, was induced into acting as a straw buyer for two overvalued residential properties in Massachusetts. Smith sued various entities and individuals involved in the transactions. After a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict largely favorable to Smith on his claims of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. The district court doubled and trebled certain damages pursuant to the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A. Two defendants, a real estate brokerage firm (Century 21) and a mortgage broker (NEMCO), appealed. Smith cross-appealed the dismissal of several of his claims. The First Circuit Court of Appeals (1) vacated the damage award against Century 21 and remanded for a new trial on damages; (2) reversed the judgment against NEMCO on Smith's common-law claims; (3) vacated the judgment against NEMCO on Smith's Chapter 93A claim and remanded for a determination on the merits; (4) vacated the judgment in favor of another defendant and remanded; and (5) reversed the dismissal of Smith's Chapter 93A claim against yet another defendant and remanded for a determination of the claim on the merits. View "Smith v. Jenkins" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the Chairman of the Trustees of the Rhode Island Bricklayers Benefits Funds (the Funds), sued Union Stone Inc., alleging that Union Stone had failed to pay the full amount of fringe benefit contributions due for work performed in Massachusetts and Connecticut by members of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. After a trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of the Funds, awarding the unpaid contributions, interest, and attorneys' fees. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) refusing to enforce a purported settlement agreement between the parties; (2) admitting certain evidence on the ground that it was tainted by violations of the discovery rules; (3) declined to impose sanctions; and (4) awarding interest and attorneys' fees. View "Enos v. Union Stone, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant was insured under three homeowners' policies issued to his parents (the Zamskys) by Plaintiff. Each policy covered a separate parcel of residential real estate owned by the Zamskys and required Plaintiff to defend and indemnify the insureds against claims stemming from bodily injury caused by a covered occurrence. One exclusion to the policy, the UL exclusion, pretermitted coverage for injuries arising out of a premises owned by an insured but not itself an "insured location." This case involved an fire that occurred on a piece of real estate owned by the Zamskys that was not insured by Plaintiff. An individual injured in the fire sued Defendant for bodily injuries. Plaintiff subsequently brought this declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that the UL exclusions pretermitted its obligation to defend Defendant in the negligence suit or to indemnify him against any damage award. The district court held that the UL exclusion did not apply and that Plaintiff owed Defendant a duty to defend. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because the occurrence at issue here did not arise out of a condition of the premises, the district court did not err in determining that the UL exclusion did not apply. View "Vt. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Zamsky" on Justia Law

Defendant sold home theater systems manufactured by Plaintiff, Bose Corporation, for use in the U.S. to customers abroad. Defendant, who was not an authorized reseller or distributor of Bose products, sold the systems across international markets to take advantage of high retail prices in other countries. Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant for breach of contract and trademark infringement, asserting that Defendant sold its American products in Australia without Plaintiff's consent even though he had signed a settlement agreement promising not to make such sales after he had made similar sales in Europe. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the settlement agreement was a valid contract; and (2) summary judgment on the trademark infringement claim was appropriate. View "Bose Corp. v. Ejaz" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued the servicer of his loan (Bank) in a putative class action, asserting that the Bank's requirement that he maintain flood insurance coverage in an amount sufficient to cover the replacement value of his home breached the terms of his mortgage contract. The mortgage was insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). Specifically, Defendant contended that the Bank, under a covenant of the mortgage contract, could not require more than the federally mandated minimum flood insurance. The covenant was a standard uniform covenant prescribed by the FHA pursuant to federal law. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The judgment of dismissal was affirmed by an equally divided en banc First Circuit Court of Appeals, holding that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of contract, as (1) the Bank's reading of the contract was correct and Plaintiff's was incorrect; (2) Plaintiff could not avoid dismissal on the grounds that his specific understanding or the actions of the parties created an ambiguity; and (3) the United States' position articulated in its amicus brief, which stated that Plaintiff's interpretation of the contract was incorrect, reinforced the Court's conclusion. View "Kolbe v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP" on Justia Law

Brian Harnett worked as an account executive and salesman for Corporate Technologies, Inc. (CTI), which provided Harnett information technology solutions to sophisticated customers. When Harnett was hired, he signed an agreement that contained non-solicitation and non-disclosure provisions. Harnett later left CTI and began working for OnX USA LLC (OnX), where he participated in sales-related communications and activities with certain of his former CTI customers on behalf of OnX. CTI sued Harnett, alleging breach of contract and tortious interference with CTI's contractual rights and advantageous relationships. CTI sought a preliminary injunction restraining Harnett from doing business with certain customers, which the district court granted. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the issuance of the preliminary injunction, holding that the district court's conclusion that Harnett likely engaged in solicitation in violation of the agreement was reasonable, and therefore, the court did not err in granting injunctive relief. View "Corporate Techs., Inc. v. Harnett" on Justia Law

This case arose from a Hampton Inn & Suites renovation and construction in Rhode Island. Stonestreet Construction, as the construction manager and general contractor, entered into a construction contract with Weybosset Hotel. Because of cost overruns and other delays, Allstate Interiors & Exteriors, one of the subcontractors on the project, filed a complaint against Stonestreet. Stonestreet counterclaimed against Allstate and brought a third-party complaint against Weybosset, bringing several state law causes of action arising from the construction project. After a trial on Stonestreet's third-party complaint against Weybosset, the district court ruled in favor of Stonestreet on its breach of contract claim and awarded damages in the amount of $571,595. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) exercising supplemental jurisdiction following Allstate and Stonestreet's partial settlement; (2) interpreting the construction contract for the purpose of calculating damages; and (3) denying Weybosset's discovery motion regarding supplemental expert reports. View "Stonestreet Constr., LLC v. Weybosset Hotel, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff borrowed money from Countrywide Financial and secured the loan with a mortgage on real property. The recorded mortgage was assigned to the Bank of New York Mellon (BONY), which also held the note on Plaintiff's property. When Plaintiff was unable to make payments on the mortgage, BONY instituted judicial foreclosure proceedings. Plaintiff filed suit to enjoin the foreclosure, arguing that (1) the description of his property in the mortgage did not satisfy New Hampshire's statute of frauds, and (2) Countrywide's unilateral addition of a more precise description of the property to the copy of the mortgage was an act of fraud that should bar BONY from foreclosing. The district court rejected both of Plaintiff's arguments. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the description of the property, in light of the surrounding circumstances, was not so imprecise as to be unenforceable under the New Hampshire statute of frauds; and (2) because the description of the property attached to the mortgage was correct, Countrywide's unilateral addition of a more precise description of the property was not fraudulent. View "French v. Bank of New York Mellon" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Massachusetts corporation engaged in international asset recovery operations, filed a complaint against Defendants, the Republic of Ukraine and some of its agents and instrumentalities, for, inter alia, breach of contract after Plaintiff performed asset recovery work for which Defendants allegedly did not compensate Plaintiff. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that they were entitled to immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The district court denied the motion in regard to the breach of contract claim, concluding that jurisdiction could be asserted over that claim under the commercial activity exception to the FSIA. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's exercise of jurisdiction over Plaintiff's breach of contract claim, holding that Defendants' transactions with Plaintiff constituted commercial activity exempt from immunity under FSIA. View "Universal Trading & Inv. Co. v. Bureau for Representing Ukrainian Interests" on Justia Law