May 18, 2019

Archives for August 23, 2013

Colorado Court of Appeals: No Workers’ Compensation Prepayment of Meal and Hotel Expenses

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Winter v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office on Thursday, August 15, 2013.

Workers’ Compensation—Prepayment of Hotel and Meal Expenses.

In this workers’ compensation proceeding, claimant sought review of the final order issued by the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (Panel) in favor of his employer, the City of Trinidad, and its insurer, CIRSA, which upheld the denial of his request for prepayment of the hotel and meal expenses he incurred while traveling to see his authorized treating physician. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Summary and full case available here.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 8/22/13

On Thursday, August 22, 2013, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and two unpublished opinions.

Rouse v. Romero

Warner, Jr. v. Patterson

No case summaries are provided for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Summary Judgment Not Appropriate Where Disputed Issue of Material Fact Exists

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in CapitalValue Advisors, LLC v. K2D, Inc. on Thursday, August 15, 2013.

Summary Judgment—Severable Provisions in Contracts—Void Contracts.

Plaintiff CapitalValue Advisors, LLC, doing business as CapitalValue M & A, LLC (CapitalValue), appealed the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of defendants, K2D, Inc., doing business as Colorado Premium Foods, and its owners, Kevin LaFleur and Don Babcock (collectively, CPF), and Triton Capital Partners, Ltd. (Triton). The Court of Appeals reversed and the case was remanded with directions.

CapitalValue is a capital advisory firm. In December 2008, CapitalValue and CPF entered into an engagement agreement (Agreement) whereby CapitalValue contracted to help sell K2D, Inc. or otherwise obtain funding to alleviate its seasonal cash flow shortages.

In July 2012, CPF hired Triton and terminated the Agreement with CapitalValue. CPF then obtained a $57 million line of credit from U.S. Bank. CapitalValue informed CPF that under a twenty-four-month “tail provision” in the Agreement, CPF owed it 4.5% of the total value of the loan. CapitalValue sued CPF, alleging breach of the Agreement, unjust enrichment, and tortious interference with contract and prospective business advantage. CPF counterclaimed, in part, asserting that because CapitalValue did not hold the requisite securities or real estate licenses, the Agreement was void. CapitalValue later amended its complaint, adding Triton as a defendant.

CPF and Triton filed summary judgment motions. CapitalValue responded that it was not a licensed securities or real estate broker at the time it entered the Agreement, but that securing the loan required no licenses and that portion of the Agreement was severable and enforceable. In a series of three orders, the district court granted CPF’s and Triton’s motions for summary judgment. CapitalValue appealed.

CapitalValue argued that it was error to conclude that, as a matter of law, the Agreement was not severable. The Court agreed. Contrary to CPF’s contention, the plain language of the Agreement provided that CapitalValue would seek to secure a loan on CPF’s behalf and would receive 4.5% of the total amount secured for “debt financing for [CPF].”

The Court then considered whether this portion of the Agreement was severable and enforceable. It disagreed with the district court’s conclusion that severing the Agreement would eviscerate real estate licensing laws. Rather, it concluded that the Agreement provided for multiple agreements, one of which was for help in obtaining debt financing. Even though the Agreement did not have a severability provision, whether the parties intended the Agreement to be severable was a disputed issue of material fact that precluded summary judgment.

CapitalValue also contended it was error to determine the Agreement was void because it violated state and federal securities laws. The Court agreed based on similar reasoning as its severability analysis. Because the Agreement contained multiple promises, each of which may constitute a separate agreement or contract, the fact that some of the agreements were void does not mean that the entire Agreement is void. The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Summary and full case available here.