X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Raymond and Tobey Willie, on their own and on behalf of their mortgage company, CIT Group, contracted with AMX for mold remediation services on their home. Under two contracts entered into between the Willies and AMX, the Willies were to pay AMX $60,978 for its services less three $500 deductions. After AMX fully performed under the contracts, the Willies’ insurer, Safeco Lloyds Insurance Co., issued three insurance checks on Sept. 30, 2002, that were each payable to “Raymond Willie & Tobey Willie & Citi Group & AMX Enterprise.” In October 2002, all three checks were indorsed by the Willies and forwarded to CIT Group with instructions to indorse the checks and forward them to AMX. On Oct. 29, 2002, instead of indorsing and sending the checks to AMX, CIT Group presented the checks for deposit at Bank One. Bank One accepted the checks even though AMX had never indorsed them. Bank One then presented the checks to the drawee bank, the Northern Trust Co., which forwarded the funds to Bank One. Bank One then deposited the funds into CIT Group’s interest-bearing account. On Dec. 7, 2002, Safeco issued four additional settlement checks totaling $71,149.38 to rebuild the Willies’ house. The Willies forwarded these checks to CIT Group on Feb. 15, 2003. On Feb. 26, 2003, CIT Group deposited the four checks into its Bank One account, and it issued three checks to “Raymond Willie III Breckenridge Luxury Homes” the following day. AMX made a written claim for $59,478 against Bank One on May 29, 2003. When these attempts to recover the funds from Bank One proved unsuccessful, AMX filed suit on June 13, 2003, against Bank One, CIT Group, and the Willies. While the suit was pending, the Willies paid off their mortgage. On Jan. 15, 2004, CIT Group mailed a check in the amount of $59,478 to the Willies. After AMX settled its claims with the Willies for $60,978 and non-suited them, the Willies assigned their claims against CIT Group and Bank One to AMX. Shortly thereafter, on May 21, 2004, Bank One filed its motion for summary judgment, contending that AMX had been paid in full and that other causes of action were preempted by the UCC. On June 25, 2004, the trial court granted Bank One’s motion for summary judgment, without stating its reasons, and held that AMX take nothing. The trial court also denied AMX’s motion for new trial. On Aug. 27, 2004, the trial court signed AMX’s order of non-suit against CIT Group, thus making the judgment final. HOLDING:Affirmed. Although it pleaded causes of action against Bank One for statutory and common law conversion, negligence and gross negligence, tortious interference with contract, and money had and received, AMX’s suit was predicated on one event as it related to Bank One, namely, Bank One’s acceptance of checks when the checks were missing AMX’s endorsements; Bank One, which does not dispute its act of depositing CIT Group’s funds in CIT Group’s account, thus caused but a single injury to AMX � the temporary loss of $59,478. On Jan. 15, 2004, the Willies received $59,478 from CIT Group. In turn, the Willies paid this sum to AMX in settlement of AMX’s breach of contract claims against them. By accepting this settlement, AMX was compensated for its injury for the temporary loss of $59,478 and, therefore, precluded from obtaining a second recovery from Bank One. To allow AMX to recover twice for a single injury would violate the purpose of the one satisfaction rule. AMX’s breach of contract claim against the Willies is technically a different cause of action than the conversion claim asserted against Bank One. Nonetheless, both causes of action are based on AMX’s right to recover for the temporary loss of $59,478, which resulted in a single injury to AMX. The court holds that because AMX accepted $59,478 from the Willies, �3.420 of the Uniform Commercial Code and the one satisfaction rule preclude AMX from recovering additional damages from Bank One. AMX contends that the trial court erred by not allowing recovery of the face amount of the checks, plus attorney’s fees, interest, court costs and loss-of-use damages pursuant to its statutory conversion claim under �3.420. AMX provides no authority that �3.420 allows for the recovery of attorney’s fees, interest, court costs, or loss-of-use damages. Because �3.420 does not specifically allow a plaintiff to recover attorney’s fees, interest, court costs, or loss-of-use on a check that has been converted, the court concludes that the trial court properly ordered that AMX takes nothing. AMX argues that the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment on the tortious interference with contract claim which the Willies assigned to it. The Willies’ assigned cause of action is based on Bank One’s conversion pursuant to �3.420. AMX pleaded that the Willies’ damages are the act of being sued by AMX. Even if AMX could show that Bank One tortiously interfered with the Willies’ contract with AMX, the Willies would still be limited to the damages provided for in �3.420. Because �3.420 does not allow recovery for the damages AMX seeks, the trial court properly granted summary judgment on the assigned tortious interference with contract claim. The Willies’ assigned cause of action is based on Bank One’s conversion pursuant to �3.420. AMX pleaded that the Willies’ damages are the act of being sued by AMX. Even if AMX could show that Bank One tortiously interfered with the Willies’ contract with AMX, the Willies would still be limited to the damages provided for in �3.420. Because �3.420 does not allow recovery for the damages AMX seeks, the trial court properly granted summary judgment on the assigned tortious interference with contract claim. OPINION:Evelyn V. Keyes, J.; Nuchia, Keyes and Hanks, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.