Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff sustained injuries at a motel while he was on duty for Union Pacific Railroad Company. Plaintiff sued Union Pacific and the motel. The parties later settled. Thereafter, Union Pacific asserted a contractual right of subrogation to the extent of medical payments made on Plaintiff’s behalf by the Union Pacific Railroad Employees Health Systems. The contract created a lien or right of reimbursement if a third party is liable but not if Union Pacific is liable. The trial court concluded that Union Pacific did not have a valid lien, right of reimbursement or right of subrogation because it was party to the settlement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the unambiguous terms of the contract, Union Pacific did not have a lien or right of reimbursement. View "Kasel v. Union Pacific R.R. Co." on Justia Law

Castellar Partners LLC was retained by appellees (collectively, the AMP parties) to review a “hedge fund portfolio” and the services being provided by another advisor. Castella and one of the AMP parties - AMP Capital Investors Limited (AMPCI), a subsidiary of AMP incorporated in Australia - executed an “Advisory Agreement” under which Castellar was required to provide its services regarding the fund in exchange for certain fees. The AMP parties terminated their relationship with Castellar the next year. Castellar filed suit, alleging that the AMP parties had “recklessly and willfully” misled it in order to obtain its services with regard to the fund. The district court dismissed one of Castellar’s claims, concluding that due to a forum selection clause, the claim for breach of contract was required to be litigated in New South Wales, Australia. The district court certified the dismissal of that claim as a final judgment, and Castella appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the certification was improper, as Castellar’s claims entailed “similar issues” and “related facts,” and all of the parties remain involved in the litigation before the district court. View "Castellar Partners, LLC v. AMP Ltd." on Justia Law

Plaintiff donated 159 acres of land to the Nebraska National Trails Museum Foundation (NNTM). At the time of the donation, NNTM leased the land back to Plaintiff and allowed him to farm the land. Plaintiff’s subsequent upgrades to the land caused the number of certified irrigated acres (CIAs) assigned to the land to almost double. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that NNTM would be unjustly enriched if it were allowed to maintain possession of the CIAs. The district court entered judgment in favor of NNTM. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in determining that Plaintiff was not entitled to the CIAs; and (2) the district judge who heard the case did not err in not recusing himself from the proceedings after the judge had a conversation with the manager of another natural resources district regarding Plaintiff. View "Kalkowski v. Neb. Nat’l Trails Museum Found., Inc." on Justia Law

Chad Johnson and Stewart Minnick entered into an agreement whereby Johnson would purchase farmland he had been renting from Minnick and Minnick’s sister after Minnick’s death. The purchase price of the farmland was to be funded by an insurance policy owned by Johnson on Minnick’s life. After Minnick died, the insurer paid the policy proceeds to Johnson. Johnson tendered the the proceeds of the policy to the personal representative of Minnick’s estate, but the personal representative refused to convey the farmland. Johnson brought this action for specific performance and other relief. The district court concluded that the purchase agreement was unenforceable. The Supreme Court affirmed but under different reasoning from that of the district court, holding (1) the purchase agreement was not specifically enforceable as a matter of law because Johnson lacked an insurable interest in Minnick’s life; and (2) Johnson’s claim for damages was time barred. View "Johnson v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Shasta Linen Supply, a California corporation, applied for workers’ compensation insurance coverage from Applied Underwriters, a Nebraska corporation. Shasta accepted Applied’s proposed policy through an agreement entitled a Request to Bind Coverages & Services. On the same day, Shasta entered into a Reinsurance Participation Agreement (RPA) with Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company (AUCRA), Applied’s subsidiary and a British Virgin Islands corporation. The request to bind and the RPA contained conflicting provisions regarding the parties’ arbitration process for resolving disputes. After a dispute arose regarding the amount of money that Shasta owed to Applied, the American Arbitration Association (AAA) acknowledged receipt of AUCRA’s demand for arbitration. Shasta filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the request to bind required arbitration by "JAMS" in Omaha, Nebraska and injunctive relief from the AAA arbitration. The court determined that it had jurisdiction to decide which contract provision controlled and issued a temporary injunction and stay of the AAA arbitration until it decided the parties’ rights. Applied and AUCRA appealed, arguing that the court erred in exercising jurisdiction over the parties’ contract dispute and granting a temporary injunction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the court’s temporary injunction and stay was an interlocutory order that was not appealable. View "Shasta Linen Supply, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant, a franchisor of professional cleaning and maintenance services, granted Appellee a franchise in the Omaha, Nebraska area. After Appellant discovered that Appellee was diverting Appellant’s customers to his new business, Appellant terminated its relationship with Appellee. Appellant then filed this lawsuit against Appellee seeking to enforce and receive damages from the breach of the noncompete clause in the franchise agreement. The district court entered judgment for Appellee, concluding that the noncompete clause included an unreasonable restraint on competition. In so ruling, the court refused to sever the offending subpart from the larger noncompete clause. The Supreme Court affirmed after reaffirming its stance against severability of noncompete clauses, holding that the noncompete covenant was invalid and unenforceable and that the district court correctly refused to sever the offending subpart from the larger noncompete clause. View "Unlimited Opportunity, Inc. v. Waadah" on Justia Law

Buyers purchased a building from Seller that had formerly been leased as a dental clinic. Buyers planned to transform the building into their personal residence. After the parties closed on the property, Buyers discovered that the interior doors had been removed. Buyers commenced a small claims action against Seller seeking damages or the return of the property. The county court entered judgment in favor of Buyers. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the doctrine of merger was inapplicable in this case because Seller had a duty to disclose that the interior doors would be removed, and Seller’s nondisclosure amounted to a misrepresentation; (2) the doors were fixtures rather than trade fixtures and thus were not removable by the former tenant; and (3) the county court’s award of damages was supported by competent evidence. View "Griffith v. Drew’s LLC" on Justia Law

Kyle Kercher sued the Board of Regents at the University of Nebraska and the University of Nebraska at Omaha (collectively, “the University”), alleging that the University breached his employment contract when it removed him from his appointed professorship that he alleged was a part of his tenured appointment as a faculty member. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Kercher on the issue of liability. Damages were stipulated by the parties, save for the issue of attorney fees. The University appealed the judgment against it, and Kercher cross-appealed the district court’s order awarding him attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly granted Kercher’s motion for partial summary judgment and did not abuse its discretion in its award of attorney fees for Kercher. View "Kercher v. Board of Regents" on Justia Law

William Gross executed an agreement with David Fiala, Ltd. (FuturesOne) setting forth the terms of Gross’ employment with FuturesOne. The agreement contained an arbitration provision. FuturesOne later filed a complaint against Gross and three other individuals who had signed similar agreements with FuturesOne, alleging that after the defendants had resigned from FuturesOne they failed to pay amounts owed to FuturesOne and violated the agreement by competing with FuturesOne. Gross moved to compel arbitration. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the claims in this action were not subject to arbitration under the arbitration provision of the agreement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred as a matter of law when it failed to determine that the arbitration provision was ambiguous and to thereafter resolve the ambiguity by considering appropriate extrinsic evidence. Remanded. View "David Fiala Ltd. v. Harrison" on Justia Law

Synergy4 Enterprises, Inc. brought an action against Pinnacle Bank on claims of promissory estoppel, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud, alleging that Pinnacle Bank caused damages by orally assuring Synergy4 that Pinnacle would provide a $1 million credit line and then only providing $400,000 provided for in a commitment letter. The district court sustained Pinnacle’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Synergy4’s claims were barred by Nebraska’s credit agreement statute of frauds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Synergy4’s claims were based on a credit agreement that was not in writing, they were barred by Nebraska’s credit agreement statute of frauds. View "Synergy4 Enters., Inc. v. Pinnacle Bank" on Justia Law