144 results for 'cat:"Negligence" AND cat:"Contract"'.
J. Kness grants an electronics company's motion for summary judgment on Walgreen's contract breach, warranty and negligence claims. The electronics company installed an alarm system in one of the pharmacy chain's refrigerated medicine warehouses, which was supposed to alert administrators when the temperature in the warehouse rose too high. The temperature did rise too high after the alarm system failed to work, but the electronics company is still not responsible for the pharmacy's loss of the temperature-sensitive medications.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Kness, Filed On: September 11, 2023, Case #: 1:17cv2120, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: negligence, Warranty, contract
J. Springmann grants in part and denies in part an insurance company’s motion to dismiss. A storm damaged the roof of a condominium building, causing damage to the exterior and interior of the building. The insured filed suit against the insurer seeking proceeds due under the policy and damages, as it claims the insurer conducted an inadequate inspection. The insurance company argues that the policy insured a now defunct condominiums owners association, therefore the insured cannot bring the current suit, but the instant court disagrees finding the name nowhere in the contract. The instant court does find that an individual is not a named insured or beneficiary on the policy and grants the insurer's motion to dismiss her as a plaintiff in this matter.
Court: USDC Northern District of Indiana, Judge: Springmann, Filed On: September 6, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv347, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Insurance, negligence, contract
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Bailey finds the lower court improperly granted a company’s motion to dismiss. A misdelivery of chemicals to a meat processing plant allegedly resulted in over $1 million in damages to the facility. The lower court found that the matter should be dismissed as a contract between the parties contains a forum selection clause. The instant court finds the clause to be unreasonable in this circumstance because it would result in multiple lawsuits with the same parties over essentially the same issues. Reversed.
Court: Indiana Court Of Appeals, Judge: Bailey, Filed On: September 5, 2023, Case #: 22A-PL-2989, Categories: negligence, contract
J. Spain finds that the trial court properly ruled in favor of the passport services business on the individual's claims over its alleged delay in processing documents relating to the requested renunciation of his Indian passport. The individual failed to show the business violated the terms of the contract or prove any "recoverable damages" on the negligence claims. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Spain, Filed On: August 29, 2023, Case #: 14-22-00294-CV, Categories: Damages, negligence, contract
J. Rickman finds that the trial court improperly considered issues related to liability at a bench trial on damages after the homeowner's motion for default judgment was granted in a negligence and breach of contract action against the contractor. The trial court incorrectly considered the quality of the construction work before awarding the homeowner damages. Reversed.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Rickman, Filed On: August 25, 2023, Case #: A23A0734, Categories: Damages, negligence, contract
J. Bredar denies summary judgment to a rail firm against a pipeline construction company, and to the company against Baltimore, after the company dumped sewage at the rail firm’s coal shipping site. Initially, the firm gave the city access to its site to allow it to update sewage lines that run underneath. The construction company, hired as a subcontractor, then dumped the sewage during its work at the site. As to the firm, there are still factual disputes regarding the extent of contamination and appropriateness as to remediation of the firm’s site, which routinely sprays loads of coal with water to suppress coal dust. The firm has not demonstrated an absence of genuine dispute of material fact. As for the company, it does owe the firm a duty of care separate from any of its obligations to the city.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Bredar, Filed On: August 25, 2023, Case #: 1:19cv2976, NOS: Other Personal Property Damage - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: Property, negligence, contract
[Consolidated.] J. Reidinger partially grants a sheriff summary judgment following allegations of malicious prosecution and negligence by a gravestone company owner after the sheriff arrested him three times in four months. The owner was unable to fulfill multiple customer contracts based on cemetery regulations and invariably told customers he would “take care of” whatever problems arose. But he failed to follow through while keeping the money they’d invested. The sheriff had a right to arrest the owner each time based on the charge of obtaining property under false pretenses. However, the sheriff’s surety bond waives governmental immunity as it applies to the bond company and the sheriff himself, so the owner may proceed on negligence claims.
Court: USDC Western District of North Carolina, Judge: Reidinger, Filed On: August 17, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv37, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Malicious Prosecution, negligence, contract
J. McCafferty grants a multinational company’s motion for summary judgment for two of the claims — one for misrepresentation and another for violation of the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act — brought against it by a communications company. It denies the motions in regards to the communications company’s claims against the multinational company for breach of contract, acting in bad faith, promissory estoppel and negligence. The multinational company’s statements showed optimism about a deal between the two companies and flattery of the communications company but not liability under the Consumer Protection Act because making unrealistic assurances to placate unhappy customers doesn’t qualify as a liability for that Act, but might for breach of contract.
Court: USDC New Hampshire, Judge: McCafferty, Filed On: August 15, 2023, Case #: 1:20cv949, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Consumer Law, negligence, contract
J. Doyle finds that the trial court properly ruled in favor of the insurance agency in a negligence and breach of contract action brought by the used car wholesaler arising from the agency's alleged failure to secure proper coverage for the wholesaler. The wholesaler had a responsibility to examine the policy for "readily apparent" exclusions. The exclusion related to coverage for vehicle losses was obvious in the policy. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Doyle, Filed On: August 9, 2023, Case #: A23A0697, Categories: Insurance, negligence, contract
J. DeGiusti finds that the general contractor breached its contract with the equipment supplier in this dispute involving the construction of a wastewater treatment plant. The general contractor seeks to recover for losses "allegedly incurred while revising the tank walls," while the supplier asserts a counterclaim based on an alleged failure to pay. The supplier's equipment properly complied "with the design specifications set forth in Addendum No. 2," and the evidence shows that the general contractor did not pay the invoice.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Oklahoma, Judge: DeGiusti, Filed On: July 31, 2023, Case #: 6:21cv19, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: negligence, contract
J. Chase finds that the trial court properly determined that an insurer does not owe coverage on a property owner's claim that the insured negligently used hot torches to perform roofing work on the property, causing a fire. A crewmember for the insured conceded that hot tools and torches were used to install a flat torch down roof to the building. Under the policy's Torch Down Roofing Exclusion, the insurer owes no duty to defend or indemnify the insured for the claims asserted by the property owner. Affirmed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Chase, Filed On: July 18, 2023, Case #: 2022-CA-0821, Categories: Insurance, negligence, contract
J. Haight grants the shipping company's motion to dismiss, ruling that because the negligence claim brought by the owner of the meal boxes damaged during transit is based on the same conduct that makes up its Carmack Amendment claim, it is preempted and must be dismissed.
Court: USDC Connecticut, Judge: Haight, Filed On: July 5, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv383, NOS: Other Personal Property Damage - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: Preemption, negligence, contract
J. Behm partially grants the staffing company's motion to dismiss a negligence and breach of implied contract class action as to claims for unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment. The action arose after the individual's personal identifiable information was exposed in a cyberattack due to the company's alleged failure to properly safeguard their computer network. The individual failed to show that the company obtained some monetary benefit or profit from him to support the unjust enrichment claim. However, the individual alleged sufficient damages to state a negligence claim, including the fact that his information was used by someone to fraudulently apply for a loan.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Michigan, Judge: Behm, Filed On: June 30, 2023, Case #: 4:22cv12086, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: negligence, Class Action, contract
J. Pascal allows a subcontractor to continue third-party claims contending it was not responsible for water damage because the property owner failed to inform contractors about the water suppression system because the property owner would share some liability if it failed to disclose the location of a thrust block.
Court: USDC New Jersey, Judge: Pascal , Filed On: June 29, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv4739, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: negligence, contract
J. Bailey finds that the lower court improperly granted summary judgment in favor of the management company on the property owner's breach of contract claim against it. There is evidence of a breach under the parties' lease management agreement, specifically related to the presence of a dog on the premises. Summary judgment was appropriate, however, as to his negligence claim. Reversed in part.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Bailey, Filed On: June 29, 2023, Case #: 11-21-00178-CV, Categories: Real Estate, negligence, contract
J. Simon finds in favor of the customer for his Unlawful Trade Practices Act claim against the car shop as part of the customer's lawsuit alleging that the car shop and its owners did not repair his Mustang and instead made it unsafe to drive. The car shop made untrue statements about the status and quality of restoration services on the customer's Mustang and the material defects of the vehicle's delivery, so the customer is entitled to $53,500 in economic damages.
Court: USDC Oregon, Judge: Simon, Filed On: June 28, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv1387, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: negligence, contract, Racketeering
J. Pipkin finds that the trial court properly ruled in favor of the landlord on the tenant's negligence and trespass claims arising from a dispute over remediation efforts for water intrusions and mold growth on the leased premises. However, the trial court incorrectly found in favor of the landlord on the tenant's breach of contract and attorney fees claims. A section of the lease governing the tenant's installation of fixtures does not apply to the breach of contract issue related to work performed by the tenant on the ceiling. An issue of material fact exists as to the claim which must be decided by a jury. Reversed in part.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Pipkin, Filed On: June 27, 2023, Case #: A23A0276, Categories: Landlord Tenant, negligence, contract
J. Block denies Exxon’s partial motion for summary judgment on its breach of contract claims brought against a petroleum refiner alleging it refused to accept for storage one of its oil-based products, Altum 4, at a storage facility located in New Jersey under a terminaling subagreement. The court finds the evidentiary record has failed to established whether or not the refiner’s facility could accommodate that particular type of oil or that its refusal to do so was a veiled attempt to negotiate a better deal in light of recent financial hardships. Additionally, the court rules in favor of the refiner on Exxon’s good faith and fair dealing and negligence claims, finding them duplicative of its breach of contract claims.
Court: USDC Eastern District of New York, Judge: Block, Filed On: June 26, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv4183, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Energy, negligence, contract