Justia U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After defendant, a developer, had not furnished a "printed property report," as required by the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ISLA), 15 U.S.C. 1701 et seq., plaintiff claimed that their contract to purchase a condominium unit from defendant was voidable. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiff. At issue was whether a single-floor condominium unit in a multi-story building was a "lot," thus triggering the disclosure and reporting requirements of the ISLA. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Department of Urban Development (HUD) promulgated a rule defining the term "lot" to require the "exclusive use of... land," and, in turn, interpreted the term "land" to mean "realty," thus applying ILSA's requirements to condominium units in multi-story buildings. Because "land" could be used as a term of art meaning "realty," the court held that CFPB and HUD have reasonably interpreted their own definition of the term "lot." Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment to plaintiff. Further, the district court did not err or abuse its discretion by awarding attorneys' fees. View "Berlin v. Renaissance Rental Partners, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's dismissal of the counts in its amended complaint directed against the Vatican State. Plaintiff alleged fraud, negligence, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion, in connection with a licensing program involving artwork and artifacts in the Vatican Library collection. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claims on the grounds of improper venue based on the forum selection clauses contained in the Sublicense Agreements. Plaintiff is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Long Beach, New York. The Vatican State is the territory over which the Holy See of the Roman Catholic Church exercised sovereignty. The court held that the Vatican State could invoke the forum selection clauses in the sublicense agreements because the licensee and the Vatican State were "closely related" parties and it was foreseeable that the Vatican would enforce the forum selection clauses. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Magi XXI, Inc. v. Stato della Citta del Vaticano" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs initiated this putative class action against Priceline, seeking compensatory, punitive, and equitable relief for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and contract, as well as a violation of Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), Conn. Gen. Stat. 42-110b. Plaintiffs' claims arose from Priceline's alleged failure to disclose to users of its "Name Your Own Price" booking service that a successful bid for a hotel room would generally exceed the amount Priceline itself compensated the hotel vendor, with Priceline retaining the difference as profit. Because plaintiffs failed as a matter of law to allege an agency relationship between Priceline and consumers who use its "Name Your Own Price" service to reserve hotel accommodations, they could not plausibly claim that Priceline breached an agent's fiduciary duty in failing to apprise consumers that it might have procured the accommodations at costs lower than their bids, retaining the difference as profits. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claims. View "Johnson v. Priceline.com, Inc." on Justia Law

R.I. Pools appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Scottsdale, which insured R.I. Pools under commercial general liability policies. Scottsdale brought this action seeking declaratory judgment that it had no obligations under the policies with respect to suits brought against R.I. Pools by purchasers of swimming pools for damage the purchasers sustained when cracks developed in their pools. Because the district court erred in ruling that defects in R.I. Pool's work were not within the scope of an "occurrence" and never considered the crucial question whether the defects come within the subcontractor exception to the express exclusion of R.I. Pools's own work, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. Because the duty to defend existed up until the point at which it was legally determined that there was no possibility for coverage under the policies, Scottsdale had not shown entitlement to any reimbursement for defense costs it previously expended. View "Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. R.I. Pools Inc." on Justia Law

The Companies, Cookson and Vesuvius, appealed the district court's judgment denying their motion for summary judgment and granting the cross-motion of the Union. After the Companies closed a facility that Vesuvius had operated, Vesuvius and the Union entered into a Facility Closure Agreement (FCA). Both parties subsequently disputed whether the agreement required Vesuvius to pay a retiree medical allowance (RMA) to certain eligible employees. The district court held that the FCA imposed such a requirement. The court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly interpreted the parties' agreement and that the Union, as party to that agreement, had standing to enforce it even where the benefits of enforcement accrued to third-party retirees. View "United Steel v. Cookson America, Inc." on Justia Law

Lehigh appealed the district court's award of damages to plaintiffs under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA), 15 U.S.C. 2801-2841. At issue was whether a franchisor could be held under the PMPA for failing to provide notice to a "trial franchisee" prior to termination of its franchise. The court held that the PMPA provided a right of action, both to "full" and "trial" franchisees, when a franchisor failed properly to notify it prior to terminating the franchise. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding plaintiffs compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs, and interest. View "Jimico Enterprises, Inc. v. Lehigh Gas Corp." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the district court's holding that defendant was liable to plaintiff, contending that it was entitled to the benefit of a contractual limitation on liability contained in a contract between its sub-bailor and a shipper. At issue was whether, under the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. 14706, or the federal common law of bailment, a third-party contractor was entitled to receive the benefit of a liability limitation in a contract between a shipper and a carrier where the contract did not extend the limitation to third parties. Because the court determined that - under either body of law - liability limitations extended to third-party contractors only if the contract clearly stated that they did, and because the court identified no error in the district court's finding on negligence, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Royal Sun Alliance Ins. PLC v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc." on Justia Law

Olin brought suit against its insurers, including American Home, regarding environmental contamination at Olin sites in the United States. On appeal, Olin challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of American Home. At issue was whether the $30.3 million attachment point for American Home's excess policies for the years 1966-69 and 1969-72 could be reached by the alleged property damage at Olin's Morgan Hill, California, manufacturing site. The court held that the plain language of Olin's policies with American Home required American Home to indemnify Olin for that damage. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Olin Corp. v. Ins. Co. of North America" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sought to avail themselves under terms of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSA), 15 U.S.C. 1701-20, by bringing suit for revocation of a purchase agreement they executed with defendants for a luxury condominium unit in New York City. Plaintiffs asserted that the agreement failed to comport with ILSA's disclosure requirements. Plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that the purchase agreement was revocable because it did not contain "a description of the lot which makes such lot clearly identifiable and which is in a form acceptable for recording" under section 1703(d)(1) of ILSA. The court held that section 1703(d)(1) required the description and not the agreement itself be "in a form acceptable for recording" and that the description at issue in this case satisfied ILSA's requirements. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions that the district court enter judgment for defendants. View "Bacolitsas v. 86th & 3rd Owner, LLC" on Justia Law

Appellants, the M/V Akili, its owner, and manager, appealed from the district court's judgment holding that it was liable in rem for damage to cargo shipped aboard the vessel. Ferrostaal cross-appealed from the holding that the owner and manager were not liable in personam under a bailment theory. At issue was whether (1) an in rem proceeding rendering the Akili liable for damage to, or loss of, cargo was unavailable in this matter because a vessel was not a "carrier" within the meaning of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), 46 U.S.C. 30701, and (ii) the free-in-and-out provision in the Voyage Charter Party purportedly absolving the Akili of in rem liability was enforceable. The court held that the first issue was essentially irrelevant because a vessel's in rem liability for damage to cargo existed under maritime common law, not COGSA, for a violation of a carrier's contractual or statutory obligations. The court resolved the second issue against enforcement of the free-in-and-out provision so far as it might be construed to prevent in rem liability of the vessel. In doing so, the court did not decide whether COGSA applied as a matter of law to this voyage because, even if it did not, the Voyage Charter Party's Clause Paramount contractually incorporated the Hague-Visby rules prohibiting a carrier from contracting for a waiver of its obligations regarding damage to cargo. The court also held that there was no in personam liability for the owner and manager where the carriers remained responsible for delivery of the goods and maintained exclusive control and custody over the cargos through agents they hired directly. View "Man Ferrostaal, Inc. v. M/V Akili" on Justia Law