Opinion ID: 219024
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Summary Judgment Dismissing Farmers's Breach of Contract Claim

Text: Farmers contends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Alpine on Farmers's breach-of-contract counterclaim. Farmers argues that the price lists it faxed to Alpine constituted offers and that Alpine accepted the offers when it performed auto-glass work on behalf of Farmers's insureds. We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence and the inferences that may reasonably be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Lexicon, Inc. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., 634 F.3d 423, 425 (8th Cir.2011). To form a unilateral contract, Minnesota law requires a definite offer, communication of the offer, acceptance, and consideration. [4] Martens v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 616 N.W.2d 732, 742 (Minn.2000). An offer must contain sufficiently definite terms to enable the fact-finder to interpret and apply them. Neb. Beef, Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Bus. Credit, Inc., 470 F.3d 1249, 1251 (8th Cir.2006) (citing Hunt v. IBM Mid Am. Emps. Fed. Credit Union, 384 N.W.2d 853, 857 (Minn.1986)). Acceptance must be unequivocal and comply exactly with the requirements of the offer. Markmann v. H.A. Bruntjen Co., 249 Minn. 281, 81 N.W.2d 858, 862 (1957). If the purported acceptance changes the terms of the offer, it is not positive and unequivocal, and constitutes a rejection of the offer and a counteroffer. Id. (quotations and citation omitted). Even if the blast faxes constituted offers to enter into unilateral contracts, Alpine rejected the offers when its actions failed to conform to the terms of the offer. The June 2002 fax informed the Shop Owner/Manager that Farmers had updated its pricing standards. The fax read, To facilitate timely payment of invoices and avoid misunderstandings, please be sure to price all Farmers Insurance transactions in accordance with the prices indicated below. After listing the pricing structure and noting that it superseded previous pricing agreements, the document explained how to submit invoices and stated that [b]ills that are accurate and are not more than this pricing structure will be paid promptly as submitted. Given the language of the document, mere performance of auto-glass work on the vehicles of Farmers's insureds did not constitute acceptance because the terms of the purported offer required that Alpine submit invoices in accordance with Farmers's pricing structure. There is no dispute that Alpine's invoices did not conform with Farmers's pricing structure. The February 2005 fax included the same information as the June 2002 fax and went on to advise Alpine that it may consider refusing the job if you are unwilling to provide service at the prices Farmers Insurance has offered above. The fax also provided that Alpine's rejection of the pricing terms would not be binding on us or otherwise require us to pay you additional sums for services rendered and that if Alpine desired to charge more than the pricing structure permitted, it must advise our policyholders prior to initiating glass repair/replacement so that they can determine whether they are willing to pay the additional costs for your services. Again, mere performance of auto-glass work did not constitute acceptance, and Alpine did not comply with the pricing requirements or the additional terms set forth in Farmers's purported offer. In Minnesota, the auto glass industry is highly regulated, Glass Serv. Co., 683 N.W.2d at 796, and the parties' conduct is better explained by Minnesota's auto-insurance statutory scheme than by any purported unilateral contracts. As set forth above, Minnesota law allows an insured to choose any auto-glass shop to repair or replace damaged auto glass. Minn.Stat. § 72A.201, subd. 6(14)-(16). The insurer must pay the vendor directly and must pay a competitive price that is fair and reasonable within the local industry at large. Id. (quoting subd. 6(14)). Accordingly, after the insureds chose Alpine as their vendor and Alpine performed auto-glass work, Farmers was required to pay Alpine directly. Although Farmers frames the issue as a breach of a unilateral contract, the real dispute is what constitutes a competitive price and who dictates that price.