Contract Term Is Ambiguous If It Is Reasonably Susceptible To More Than One Meaning
CURIA v. NELSON (November 20, 2009)
Kenneth Nelson owned two car dealerships -- Auto Plaza and Auto Mall. In 1989, he and Richard Curia entered into an agreement whereby Curia agreed to pay $100,000 for 1000 (of 8180) shares in Auto Plaza and 144 (of 1200) shares in Auto Mall. The agreement also gave Curia three separate options to buy additional stock in both dealerships, up to 100% of each. Curia exercised the first of the options in 1990. A few years later, in 1993, Nelson and Curia modified the agreement, apparently because the total number of shares in the two companies had increased. The 1993 agreement also provided that Curia could purchase additional shares "upon those terms and conditions subsequently agreed upon." A later agreement terminated Curia's rights to acquire any additional Auto Mall stock. In 2005, however, Curia attempted to exercise his options to acquire all of the stock in Auto Plaza. Nelson filed a declaratory judgment action contesting Curia's right. Curia counterclaimed for breach of contract. The court granted summary judgment to Curia. Nelson appeals.
In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Williams and Sykes reversed and remanded. The issue identified by the Court was whether Curia's 1989 options survived the 1993 modification. The Court noted that both Nelson and Curia argued that the 1993 agreement was unambiguous and supported his own interpretation. The parties, however, do not control whether a contract term is ambiguous. It is a question of law for the court. Here, the Court found the 1993 language reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning -- and therefore ambiguous. Both of the interpretations are reasonable readings of the contract language. The ambiguity must be resolved with reference to extrinsic evidence -- not on summary judgment.
.jpg)
Stephen Bandak was employed by an Eli Lilly company in England, his native country, from 1978 to 1995. He participated in the company's retirement plan. He was transferred to the United States in 1995. The company told him, upon his enrollment in the U. S. company's plan, that his benefits in that plan would be based on years of employment retroactive to 1978. The plan also provided that benefits would be reduced by the actuarial equivalence of any other benefits under a “qualified defined benefit plan” maintained by an Eli Lilly company. When Bandak retired in 2004, the company took the position that his benefits under the English company's plan were benefits under a qualified defined benefit plan and were thus properly deducted from his U.S. pension benefits. Bandak sued the company under ERISA. Judgment was entered in his favor for both damages and an injunction relating to future benefit payments. The court also concluded that Lilly's position was not substantially justified and awarded attorneys’ fees. Eli Lilly appeals.
Roger Twenhafel owns a business that manufactures wood cabinets. He stores some of his wood inventory outdoors. Just before a violent storm hit in late 2006, he covered the inventory with a tarp and secured it with heavy blocks and beams. In spite of this effort, the storm lifted and carried the tarp away. The inventory was damaged. Twenhafel made a claim against State Auto Property and Casualty Insurance Company. The policy covered all losses except those specifically excluded. State Auto denied the claim, relying on an exclusion for rain damage to property "in the open." Twenhafel brought suit for breach of the insurance policy. The district court found that "in the open" was not ambiguous and it meant property that was exposed to the elements with no protection. The court granted summary judgment to Twenhafel and awarded prejudgment interest at 6.98% and postjudgment interest at .96%. State Auto appeals..jpg)
The plaintiffs, Bonnie and Connie Roth, were insurance agents. Each had an agency agreement with American Family Mutual Insurance Company. The agreement provided that it could be terminated for "undesirable performance" only with six months notice and an opportunity to correct. It also provided that it could be terminated without notice if an agent engaged in "dishonest, disloyal or unlawful" conduct. One of the agents signed an applicant's name on a insurance policy application at the applicant’s request. The other signed the name of a different agent on a policy certification, also with authorization. American Family terminated their agency agreements. The Roths brought suit for breach of contract. The district court granted summary judgment to American Family. The Roths appeal.
In 1992, Amoco Chemical Company (“Amoco”) and Catalyst Resources, Inc. (“CRI”) entered into a long-term supply agreement for polypropylene catalyst. CRI agreed to build a facility for production of the catalyst – Amoco agreed to fund it over time with its purchase commitments. The contract was quite long and detailed. Article 17 was a Right of First Refusal – it provided that neither CRI nor its parent could dispose of CRI or the plant without first giving Amoco a right to purchase. Article 17 did not apply to a disposition to another company wholly owned by CRI’s parent. Article 19 dealt with assignments. It provided that neither party could assign the agreement without the consent of the other. Article 19 permitted an assignment, without consent, by Amoco to any company owned 50% or more by its parent and by CRI to any company owned 100% by its parent. Both companies underwent significant changes over the following fifteen years. Among the many changes on the Amoco side was its sale by its then parent in 2005 to INEOS US Intermediate Holding Company. The company was renamed INEOS Polymers (“INEOS”). Meanwhile, on the CRI side, the assets were sold in 1993 to Mallinckrodt and sold again in 1998 to Engelhard. On both occasions, Amoco waived its Article 17 right of first refusal. In 2006, BASF acquired Engelhard and renamed it BASF Catalysts (“BASF”). INEOS advised BASF and Engelhard that the transaction triggered its Article 17 right of first refusal. BASF disagreed. INEOS brought an action, alleging breach of contract and tortious interference. The district court dismissed the complaint. It held that the sale of Amoco to INEOS was an assignment to a party not owned 50% or more by Amoco’s parent and thus triggered Article 19. INEOS was, therefore, an impermissible assignee of the contract and could not sue to enforce it. INEOS appeals.
Robert Holmes was an employee of the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) in Minnesota from 1970 until 1992. He sued the USPS under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). The case settled in 1994. Shortly thereafter, he returned to the employ of USPS in Indiana. In 2003, Holmes filed a complaint with the EEOC that the USPS failed to accommodate a disability, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. In mid-2004, Holmes and USPS resolved their dispute at an EEOC mediation. The settlement agreement a) placed Holmes on twenty hours per week administrative leave/twenty hours per week leave-without-pay status through October 2004 and retroactive to January 2003, b) specified his salary, and c) required him to retire or resign in October 2004. Holmes filed this suit to enforce the settlement agreement, complaining that several actions taken by USPS after the settlement violated its terms. The district court granted summary judgment to USPS. Holmes appeals.