Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

An accountant and the company he owned (collectively, MBS), filed suit against Defendants, telecommunications companies, asserting claims for damages under Wis. Stat. 100.207 and other statutes, arguing that Defendants' telephone bills contained unauthorized charges. The circuit court dismissed MBS's claims for relief, determining that although the complaint properly alleged violations of section 100.207, the voluntary payment doctrine barred any entitlement to monetary relief. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding (1) the Supreme Court had not decided whether the legislature intended the voluntary payment doctrine to be a viable defense against any cause of action created by a statute; and (2) under the circumstances, the conflict between the manifest purpose of section 100.207 and the common law defense left no doubt that the legislature intended that the common law defense should not be applied to bar claims under the statute. Remanded. View "MBS-Certified Pub. Accountants, LLC v. Wis. Bell Inc." on Justia Law

This case was before the Supreme Court on a writ of prohibition brought by Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (MassMutual) seeking to prohibit the circuit court from enforcing two orders requiring the president and CEO of MassMutual to submit to depositions. MassMutual argued (1) the orders requiring its president to submit to depositions were properly the subject of a writ of prohibition, and (2) the orders compelling the depositions of this high-ranking corporate executive, despite his lack of any personal or unique knowledge about the cases, were clearly erroneous and constituted an abuse of the circuit court's discretion. The Supreme Court issued the writ after adopting the apex deposition rule, a framework for assessing whether the deposition of a high-ranking corporate official is proper, holding that because the circuit court, in this case, did not make findings of fact or conclusions of law, there was an insufficient basis to sustain the circuit court's orders. View "State ex rel. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Jefferson County Circuit Court (Sanders)" on Justia Law

Hawkeye Foodservice Distribution filed a petition for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Iowa Educators Corporation (IEC) and ten Area Education Agencies (AEAs) comprising IEC, seeking (1) a declaration that the operation of IEC was in violation of Iowa Code 273 and 28E; (2) equitable relief enjoining the AEAs and IEC from further operation in violation of Iowa law; and (3) injunctive and declaratory relief on the ground that the AEAs and IEC operate in violation of Iowa Code 23A. The district court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding (1) Hawkeye lacked standing to bring the chapter 273 and 28E claims; and (2) Hawkeye failed to allege sufficient facts demonstrating it was entitled to relief under chapter 23A. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals and reversed the district court, holding that the district court erred in (1) dismissing Hawkeye's chapter 273 and 28E claims for lack of standing, as Hawkeye's petition alleged facts that gave it standing to challenge the actions of the AEAs and IEC; and (2) dismissing the action, as the factual allegations set forth in the petition, if proved, stated statutory claims sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss. View "Hawkeye Foodservice Distrib., Inc. v. Iowa Educators Corp." on Justia Law

Husband and wife Emmett and Debra Jackson appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in their action against the bank and trustee. The Jacksons challenged a foreclosure sale of their property. The Jacksons refinanced an existing home loan; in so doing, they gave a mortgage on the property which was subsequently assigned to Wells Fargo. Although the mortgage was, in turn, assigned to the trustee, the bank continued to function as the "servicer" of the loan. By 2007, the Jacksons were in arrears on their mortgage payments. While the Jacksons and the bank were engaged in negotiations for forbearance, the Jacksons did not make certain scheduled payments. During the negotiations, a debt-collection representative of the trustee sent the Jacksons a "NOTICE OF ACCELERATION OF PROMISSORY NOTE AND MORTGAGE." The house was put up for sale, and a foreclosure deed was issued to a third party. The Jacksons then sued the bank, the trustee, and the purchaser of the property alleging negligent or wanton foreclosure and breach of contract. The bank and trustee moved for summary judgment, contending that the Jacksons lacked any basis from which to contest the foreclosure sale. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the Jacksons presented no basis on which to reverse the summary judgment as to their claim of negligent or wanton foreclosure, however, the Court agreed that the acceleration letter was fundamentally flawed. The Court reversed the grant of summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Appellant was physically injured as a result of an accident caused by an underinsured motorist. Prior to the accident, Appellant purchased a Dairyland Insurance Policy through his insurance agent, Jonathan Schrack. Although Appellant requested full coverage, the policy did not include underinsured motorist coverage. When the other driver's insurance did not fully cover Appellant's damages, Appellant sued Dairyland and Schrack (Defendants), raising numerous theories as to why he should recover under the Dairyland policy. The district court granted Defendants' motions for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding, inter alia, (1) Wyoming's uninsured motorist statutes unambiguously do not require insurers to provide underinsured motorist liability coverage; (2) Appellant's failure to read the policy was available as a defense to Defendants as to Appellant's negligence and contract claims against them and barred application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel; and (3) the doctrine of reasonable expectations was not available to alter the unambiguous terms of the policy. View "Broderick v. Dairyland Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their second amended complaint alleging that HP concealed a design defect in its Pavilion Notebook computers that manifested after the expiration of the warranty and created an unreasonable safety hazard in violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code 1750 et seq., and Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200 et seq. The court found that the district court did not err in requiring plaintiffs to allege the existence of an unreasonable safety defect and that the district court did not err in holding that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege the existence of an unreasonably safety defect or HP's knowledge of a defect. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Wilson, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Co." on Justia Law

Heritage Bank sued Jerome Bruha on promissory notes that it had purchased from the FDIC. The FDIC had obtained the notes after it became a receiver for the failed bank that had initially lent the money to Bruha. The notes secured lines of credit for Bruha's benefit. The district court granted summary judgment to Heritage and awarded it $61,384 on one of the notes. The primary issues on appeal were whether the holder-in-due-course rule of Nebraska's Uniform Commercial Code or federal banking law barred Bruha's defenses to the enforcement of the note. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed in part, concluding that federal law barred Bruha's defenses; and (2) reversed in part because of a minor error in the court's calculation of interest. Remanded. View "Heritage Bank v. Bruha" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted an interlocutory appeal from the superior court that partially granted and partially denied the summary judgment motion filed by Defendants Lakes Region Water Company and Thomas Mason (collectively LRWC). The question before the Court was whether the superior court erred in concluding that Defendants were not exempt from the Consumer Protection Act to the extent that they allegedly misrepresented that the water they provided was safe for use and consumption. Answering in the affirmative, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s denial of partial summary judgment as to the claims of the plaintiffs Jo Anne Rainville, Carl Beher, Lisa Mullins d/b/a The Olde Village Store, and approximately fifty others, under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) which sought damages for alleged misrepresentations about the quality of water provided. View "Rainville v. Lakes Region Water Company, Inc." on Justia Law

John and Paul Pelletier formed St. Sauveur Development in the 1970s and transferred title of several jointly-owned properties to the corporation. In 2002, an appraiser appraised the corporation's property holdings. After the appraisal, the brothers agreed to divide the properties and how they would be divided, with the understanding that John would make a cash payment to Paul to equalize the division. In 2004, John began making payments to Paul. In 2005, the brothers received an analysis from Paul's accountant that they agreed on the actual amount of Paul's payment and to the payment terms, including the interest rate. Paul subsequently filed a complaint for dissolution and other relief. The business and consumer docket determined and divided John's and Paul's interests in St. Sauveur, concluding that the parties had entered into an enforceable agreement in 2002. The Supreme Court vacated in part, holding (1) the agreement regarding interest was reached in 2005, and therefore, the court's determination that interest should accrue from the date of the 2002 appraisal was error; and (2) the court did not err in failing to find that a check from St. Sauveur that Paul negotiated in 2009 gave rise to an accord and satisfaction. Remanded. View "Pelletier v. Pelletier" on Justia Law

Appellant Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates (CTSA) appealed an order of the circuit court granting summary judgment against CTSA and finding that CTSA's lien was second in priority to Appellee Metropolitan National Bank's lien on certain property. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without prejudice, holding that there was not a final order in this case nor was there an Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b) certification. The Court concluded (1) it was impossible for the Court to determine if all claims and parties pertaining to the complaint had been settled; (2) the record contained no final disposition as to Metropolitan's claims against two individual defendants; and (3) The status of CTSA's breach-of-contract claims against individual defendants and its monetary-judgment claim against another party was unclear. View "Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Assocs. v. Ruskin Heights, LLC" on Justia Law