United States ex rel. Thomas v Black and Veatch Special Projects Corp.

Tomas appealed summary judgment for Projects in his qui tam case. The panel affirmed. It held that when the liability allegations are based on contractual braches, a plaintiff must prove that the provision violated undercuts the purpose of the contract as a whole. Here, the altered educational documents possibly used to obtain visas to work in Afghanistan did not undercut the purpose of the contract as they were unrelated to the performance standards for increasing the supply of electricity. The panel noted that the government was told about the altered documents yet paid all invoices submitted and accepted 10 of 13 projects as completed in compliance with the contract here.

PHL variable Insurance Company v The Sheldon Hathaway Family Trust and Windsor Securities, LLC

Trust and Windsor appealed summary judgment for PHL rescinding a life insurance policy and allowing PHL to retain premiums already paid. It held there was no waiver of the right to rescind by PHL because evidence its law department completed its investigation on a certain date did not mean PHL learned about the misrepresentations of net worth in the application on that date and thus rescission was not barred by Utah statute or a course of conduct and a claim of agency waiver was void of specific factual argumentation and thus inadequately briefed. The panel held the applicant here should have known that the application was going to misstate his net worth and thus a misrepresentation chargeable to Trust occurred. It held Trust and Windsor failed to provide any authority for their reliance argument and in any event PHL’s investigation here was not cursory under circuit precedent. It finally held that because Windsor is not the insured, the district court had authority to order the premium it paid to PHL to remain with PHL.  

Anzures v Flagship Restaurant Group

https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gifAnzures appealed the district court order dismissing his case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The panel affirmed. It held there was no jurisdiction over Flagship in the tort component of the case as Anzures reached out to Flagship to start their joint venture, the acts complained of were internal to a limited liability company and did not affect Colorado as it was a Nevada company with a nominal headquarters in Nebraska and there were no other contacts with Colorado connected to the suit. The panel affirmed on the contract claims as the contract was entered into in Nevada and the company was governed by Nevada law and Flagship therefore did not avail itself of any activity or other contact with Colorado concerning the contract.