Blessey Marine Services, Inc. v. Jeffboat, L.L.C.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21733
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Blessey (barge buyer) and Jeffboat (builder) entered an Original Contract (Apr 2009) with steel price adjustments tied to “actual average cost per ton,” capped at $800/ton for pricing.
- In July 2009 the parties executed a First Amendment for additional barges; the Amendment modified Article III and stated, among other things, that except for the steel escalation as provided in Article III, other contract terms applied.
- Dispute: Jeffboat treated the Amendment as fixing steel at $525/ton (excluding de-escalation); Blessey contended the de-escalation still applied and sued for breach of contract (and later alleged breach of warranty for two vessels).
- District court found the Amendment ambiguous, denied cross-motions for summary judgment, allowed extrinsic/parol evidence, and submitted interpretation issues to the jury; jury found for Blessey on warranty but rejected Blessey’s contract claim.
- On appeal Blessey challenged (1) denial of partial summary judgment (arguing that ambiguity should be construed against drafter as a matter of law) and (2) denial of its motion in limine to exclude extrinsic/parol evidence; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate review is available of denial of partial summary judgment after a jury trial | Blessey argued the denial involved a pure legal question (construction against drafter) and should be reviewable | Jeffboat contended interlocutory denial after a jury trial is not reviewable under Circuit precedent | Court: No jurisdiction to review denial of summary judgment after a jury trial under Becker; appeal untimely on that ground |
| Whether an ambiguous contract must be construed against the drafter as a matter of law | Blessey: Indiana law requires entry of judgment against the drafter when contract is ambiguous | Jeffboat: Indiana law does not mandate judgment for drafter in every case; ambiguity can require extrinsic evidence and factfinder resolution | Held: Even on the merits, Indiana does not require automatic judgment for drafter; extrinsic evidence and jury resolution appropriate |
| Whether the Amendment’s integration clause barred extrinsic/parol evidence (motion in limine) | Blessey: Integration clause precludes use of extrinsic evidence to vary/contradict the writing under Indiana law | Jeffboat: Clause does not operate as a complete integration clause for that purpose | Held: Blessey waived the claim by introducing and referring to the same extrinsic evidence at trial; cannot appeal erroneous admission once you introduced it (Ohler) |
| Whether failure to renew objection in Rule 50 (JMOL) forecloses review of legal issue | Blessey: Asked court to excuse absence of Rule 50 motion because district court denied Jeffboat’s Rule 50 motion | Jeffboat: Preservation via Rule 50 is required following jury trial to preserve pure legal objections | Held: Rule 50 preservation required for review after jury trial; Blessey did not file Rule 50 on the point, so appellate review not available |
Key Cases Cited
- Black v. J.I. Case Co., 22 F.3d 568 (5th Cir.) (interlocutory denials of summary judgment generally not reviewable)
- Becker v. Tidewater, Inc., 586 F.3d 358 (5th Cir. 2009) (narrow exception: review of summary judgment denial when legal issue and bench trial)
- Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753 (2000) (a party introducing evidence cannot complain on appeal that it was erroneously admitted)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 920 N.E.2d 253 (Ind. 2010) (where interpretation requires extrinsic evidence, construction is for the factfinder)