Seventh Circuit Provides Guidance on Certifying Class Definition and Claims Differing from Those Proposed in Complaint

Seventh Circuit Provides Guidance on Certifying Class Definition and Claims Differing from Those Proposed in Complaint

This week we discuss the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in Beaton v. SpeedyPC Software, which weighed in on the propriety of certifying a class narrower than the definition proposed in the complaint and upon claims not specifically identified in the complaint. We also briefly look at eight other appellate decisions from the past two weeks that include: (i) holding that the misuse defense under Indiana’s Products Liability Act can be a complete defense; (ii) a party’s complete about-face can be a basis for surprise to obtain relief from a judgment under Trial Rule 60(B)(1); (iii) multi-year assertion that a defendant is subject to the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act and numerous delays to await a medical review panel determination can be sufficient to estop a plaintiff from arguing that the defendant is not subject to the Medical Malpractice Act; (iv) contracts attached to complaints are admissible as evidence at trial even if not specifically identified in final exhibits list; (v) a claim for unjust enrichment can be made even if the benefits are provided by a third-party; (vi) courts may commit reversible error when elevating formality over substantial justice with overly rigid application of procedure at trial; (vii) illustrating considerations in applying the doctrines of apparent authority and apparent agency; and (viii) citations to the record along with other citations count toward the word limit in federal appellate filings despite no rule specifically stating that citations are included in the word count.

Read More

Seventh Circuit Answers When a Change in Legal Theory Stated in a Complaint Will Prove Disastrous and When an Indiana Supply Contract is Enforceable

Seventh Circuit Answers When a Change in Legal Theory Stated in a Complaint Will Prove Disastrous and When an Indiana Supply Contract is Enforceable

This week, we discuss the Seventh Circuit’s ruling in the second appeal of Brc Rubber & Plastics, Inc. v. Cont’l Carbon Co., which held that a supply contract for the purchase of an approximate amount for a fixed price was an enforceable contract and further analyzed how a change in legal theory from that advanced in the complaint may impact the litigation.

Read More

Seventh Circuit Affirms Piercing Corporate Veil to Attach $7.5m Judgment

Seventh Circuit Affirms Piercing Corporate Veil to Attach $7.5m Judgment

Today’s discussion looks at numerous recent cases ranging from the use of unsigned depositions at summary judgment, the possible need to provide details in support of damages calculations for actions sounding in breach of contract, whether Goodwin and Rogers apply to duty analyses beyond premises liability, the grounds for awarding class-action attorney fees, the scope of specific personal jurisdiction under Indiana law, and then take a deeper dive into the Seventh Circuit’s opinion affirming a bankruptcy court’s decision to pierce a corporate veil in order to attach a $7.5m judgment held by a former shareholder against the lone remaining shareholder.

Read More

Indiana Court of Appeals: Third-Party Beneficiary Claim Does Not Require Written Contract

Indiana Court of Appeals: Third-Party Beneficiary Claim Does Not Require Written Contract

This week, we look to the recent Court of Appeals of Indiana decision in Tucker v. Tom Raper, Inc., which held that third-party beneficiary claims can be brought on oral contracts. Tucker is the first case in Indiana to so hold.

Read More

Indiana Revisits Interpretation of AIA Standard Construction Contract

Indiana Revisits Interpretation of AIA Standard Construction Contract

This week's discussion returns to interpretation of the AIA Standard Construction Contract through a rehearing on the case Allen County Public Library v. Shambaugh & Son, L.P. The post also looks at a very meaningful development in the ability to cite unpublished cases to Indiana courts.

Read More

Seventh Circuit Permits Parol Evidence to Prove Fraud in the Inducement Despite Lack of Fraud in Integration Clause

Seventh Circuit Permits Parol Evidence to Prove Fraud in the Inducement Despite Lack of Fraud in Integration Clause

In this week's post, we take a look at the recent Seventh Circuit case Judson Atkinson Candies, Inc. v. Kenray Associates, Inc. that held that parol evidence could be used to prove fraud in the inducement of a contract – a settlement agreement and covenant not to execute – even though the contract contained an integration clause. The decision reversed a trial court decision holding that parol evidence could only be used to show that the integration clause itself was the product of fraud.

Read More

7th Circuit: No Need for Specificity in Contract Dispute Liability Cap

7th Circuit: No Need for Specificity in Contract Dispute Liability Cap

This week we discuss the 7th Circuit decision SAMS Hotel Group, LLC v. Environs, Inc. which found that, at least between two sophisticated parties, a liability cap in a contract dispute is enforceable even without specifying its application to defendant's own negligence. The result capped the claim at $70,000 and prevented the plaintiff from seeking the full $4.2 Million in damages.

Read More

Indiana Court of Appeals: Residential Insurance Policy Requiring Claim Against Insurer be Filed in Under 2 Years is Void

Indiana Court of Appeals: Residential Insurance Policy Requiring Claim Against Insurer be Filed in Under 2 Years is Void

This week we discuss the major Indiana Court of Appeals decision, which found that not only is an insurance policy's limitation for bringing a suit against the insurer to less than the statutory period set forth by statute void, but that the limitation period is not then the minimal period that could have been agreed upon but rather the full statutory period for breach of contract actions.

Read More