Britton v. Whittmanhart, Inc.

2 Citing cases

  1. Accredited Sur. & Cas. Co. v. Superior Solar Design, LLC

    Civil Action 23-1865 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 25, 2023)

    A motion to dismiss must be denied where contract provisions are ambiguous because ambiguous terms are interpreted by the finder of fact. See Ram Const. Co. v. Am. States Ins. Co., 749 F.2d 1049, 1052 (3d Cir. 1984); IKB Int'l S.A. v. Wilmington Tr. Co., 774 Fed.Appx. 719, 724 (3d Cir. 2019); Pure Earth, Inc. v. Call, 2010 WL 11710570, at *5 n.5 (E.D. Pa. May 27, 2010); Smokowicz v. Graphic Packaging Int'l, Inc., 2017 WL 2362409, at *4 (E.D. Pa. May 30, 2017); see also Britton v. Whittmanhart, Inc., 2009 WL 2487410, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 13, 2009) (denying motion to dismiss breach of contract claim in light of “potential ambiguity” and in lack of a more developed record).

  2. SKF USA Inc. v. Okkerse

    992 F. Supp. 2d 432 (E.D. Pa. 2014)   Cited 34 times
    Holding that a forum selection clause resolved a dispute over personal jurisdiction

    Similarly, in Britton v. Whittmanhart, Inc., a Delaware corporation headquartered in Illinois sought enforcement of a choice of law provision designating Illinois law. No. 09–1593, 2009 WL 2487410, at *1 (E.D.Pa. Aug. 13, 2009). The plaintiff, a Pennsylvania citizen, argued that Pennsylvania law should apply because it was the state in which the contract was executed, signed, and carried out.