{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-6096-2026-10-09","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-6096-2026-10-09)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-20","fingerprint":"ewai:us:49b4aa","proof":"sha256:ca635542091d215e592a56e4ffabfbaf43664fabb49ac5b0f486894ff20ce128","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ca6-25-6096-2026-10-09","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"File Name: 26a0281p.06","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT","paragraphs":["para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19"]},{"title":"No. 25-6096","paragraphs":["para_21","para_22"]},{"title":"Argued: July 30, 2026","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Decided and Filed: October 9, 2026","paragraphs":["para_25","para_26"]},{"title":"COUNSEL","paragraphs":["para_28"]},{"title":"West Virginia, for Appellant. Jason M. Halper, VINSON & ELKINS LLP, New York, New","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"York, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: David R. Pogue, Steven R. Ruby, CAREY DOUGLAS","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"KESSLER & RUBY, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, Peter C. Robison, LEWIS","paragraphs":["para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35"]},{"title":"OPINION","paragraphs":["para_37"]},{"title":"MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Senator James C. Justice II and his family own and operate","paragraphs":["para_39","para_40"]},{"title":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 2","paragraphs":["para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48"]},{"title":"I","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"States typically prohibit coal companies from mining coal without a permit. To obtain a","paragraphs":["para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61"]},{"title":"This case involves two of the three parties to the surety-bond relationship. “Lexon is a","paragraphs":["para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68"]},{"title":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 3","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Several coal companies and affiliates owned by Senator Justice and his family (along","paragraphs":["para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76"]},{"title":"The Companies’ financial condition has deteriorated during their relationship with","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Lexon. They paid their premiums on time for years. Over the past decade, however, the coal","paragraphs":["para_79"]},{"title":"2213–14. As a result, the Companies started to miss premium payments around 2016. Lexon","paragraphs":["para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84"]},{"title":"In March 2018, therefore, Lexon and the Companies signed an agreement designed to","paragraphs":["para_86","para_87","para_88"]},{"title":"Companies agreed to post $5 million in new collateral within six months and to pay the $3","paragraphs":["para_90","para_91","para_92"]},{"title":"By early 2019, though, the Companies still had not met their obligations under this","paragraphs":["para_94","para_95"]},{"title":"Lexon and the Companies thus entered what we will call the “Amended Agreement”—","paragraphs":["para_97"]},{"title":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 4","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Companies’ collateral obligations and their premium obligations. As for the collateral","paragraphs":["para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103"]},{"title":"As for the premium obligations, the Amended Agreement first identified the amounts that","paragraphs":["para_105"]},{"title":"Companies owed under the prior agreement) as $1,025,000. Joint App’x (J.A.) 151. In the","paragraphs":["para_107","para_108"]},{"title":"(the ‘New Indebtedness’).” Id. The Amended Agreement also contemplated that “additional","paragraphs":["para_110","para_111"]},{"title":"Id. at 152–53. The Amended Agreement added: “The Remaining Indebtedness together with the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"New Indebtedness is equal to $3,538,400.75 (the ‘Total Indebtedness’).” Id. at 151. The","paragraphs":["para_114","para_115"]},{"title":"Before entering into this agreement with the Companies, Lexon required Senator Justice","paragraphs":["para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122"]},{"title":"Unfortunately, the Companies’ conditions did not improve after the Amended","paragraphs":["para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127"]},{"title":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 5","paragraphs":["para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134"]},{"title":"Even after entering into these additional letter agreements, the Companies still could not","paragraphs":["para_136","para_137","para_138"]},{"title":"2019, but they stopped making any premium payments in March 2021. Lexon thus sent the","paragraphs":["para_140","para_141"]},{"title":"When the Companies did not pay, Lexon turned to Senator Justice. In July 2023, Lexon","paragraphs":["para_143","para_144","para_145"]},{"title":"Lexon thus sued Justice to enforce the guaranty. At the summary-judgment stage, the","paragraphs":["para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151"]},{"title":"Indebtedness on the past-due premiums. See id. The court concluded as a matter of law that","paragraphs":["para_153"]},{"title":"Companies already paid). See id. at *11. But it found a dispute of fact over the amount of","paragraphs":["para_155"]},{"title":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 6","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The court held a two-day bench trial on damages. See Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice, 808","paragraphs":["para_158","para_159"]},{"title":"See id. at 851. It also recognized that the Companies had paid $4.21 million in premium","paragraphs":["para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165"]},{"title":"Indebtedness owed. Since the Amended Agreement’s start in February 2019, the Companies had","paragraphs":["para_167","para_168","para_169"]},{"title":"Companies (which we take to include the $4.21 million). Tr., R.120, PageID 2200.) When","paragraphs":["para_171","para_172"]},{"title":"II","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"On appeal, the parties debate three questions about the meaning of the Amended","paragraphs":["para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180"]},{"title":"Lexon argues)?","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"All three contract questions follow the same ground rules. The parties agree (and so we","paragraphs":["para_183"]},{"title":"Mortg., LLC, 166 F.4th 556, 566 (6th Cir. 2026). Under West Virginia law (as under most","paragraphs":["para_185"]},{"title":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 7","paragraphs":["para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201"]},{"title":"A. Meaning of Total Indebtedness","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The parties first disagree over what the phrase “Total Indebtedness” means in the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Amended Agreement. Paragraph 3 of the Amended Agreement contains three important terms:","paragraphs":["para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208"]},{"title":"This number represents the amount of past-due premiums that the Companies had owed at the","paragraphs":["para_210","para_211"]},{"title":"Next, the parties agree that the phrase “New Indebtedness” equals the sum of two","paragraphs":["para_213","para_214"]},{"title":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 8","paragraphs":["para_216"]},{"title":"Amended Agreement (February 2019). These missed payments added up to an additional","paragraphs":["para_218","para_219","para_220"]},{"title":"As for the changing component, Lexon worried that the Companies would continue to","paragraphs":["para_222","para_223","para_224"]},{"title":"The [Companies] recognize that additional amounts for premium may become","paragraphs":["para_226"]},{"title":"Indebtedness shall be increased in like amount (e.g., if new premium is due on","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"March 2, 2019 in the amount of $10,000.00, the New Indebtedness is increased by","paragraphs":["para_229","para_230","para_231"]},{"title":"But the parties part ways once we turn to the third term: “Total Indebtedness.”","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Paragraph 3 of the Amended Agreement introduces this term in parentheses after a critical","paragraphs":["para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238","para_239","para_240","para_241"]},{"title":"We agree with Lexon for two reasons. First, West Virginia contract law requires courts","paragraphs":["para_243","para_244"]},{"title":"McDonald Holding Co. v. Addington, Inc., 825 S.E.2d 779, 784–85 (W. Va. 2019). And","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 9","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Lexon’s view better fits the Amended Agreement as a whole. Under Paragraph 3(b), the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Companies “agree[d], jointly and severally, to pay Lexon the Total Indebtedness” in two","paragraphs":["para_249"]},{"title":"(emphasis added). The Amended Agreement nowhere made the Companies jointly and severally","paragraphs":["para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256"]},{"title":"Second, West Virginia law directs courts to read two contracts on the same subject matter","paragraphs":["para_258"]},{"title":"LLC v. Reynolds, 842 S.E.2d 783, 788 (W. Va. 2020). Senator Justice does not challenge the","paragraphs":["para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264"]},{"title":"Companies promised to pay $200,000 per month “until the Total Indebtedness (including any","paragraphs":["para_266","para_267","para_268"]},{"title":"That is, it makes clear that Total Indebtedness is not a specific number and includes all","paragraphs":["para_270","para_271","para_272"]},{"title":"Senator Justice’s responses do not convince us otherwise. As we have said, he notes that","paragraphs":["para_274","para_275"]},{"title":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 10","paragraphs":["para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280","para_281","para_282","para_283"]},{"title":"841–42. When read through this broader lens, “Total Indebtedness” has a clear meaning. The","paragraphs":["para_285","para_286","para_287"]},{"title":"Justice challenges our claim that his view would render Paragraph 3(c) superfluous. He","paragraphs":["para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295","para_296"]},{"title":"We see three problems with this argument. For one thing, Paragraph 3(d) nowhere refers","paragraphs":["para_298","para_299"]},{"title":"New Indebtedness. Rather, we agree with the district court that Paragraph 3(d) applies to","paragraphs":["para_301"]},{"title":"For another thing, West Virginia courts presume that the same phrase has the “same","paragraphs":["para_303"]},{"title":"495 (W. Va. 1936). Justice’s reading violates this presumption. He reads the Amended","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Agreement to use the same phrase (“New Indebtedness”) as defining two distinct payment","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 11","paragraphs":["para_307","para_308","para_309"]},{"title":"For a third, contrary to Justice’s claim, Paragraph 3(d)’s separate payment provision","paragraphs":["para_311","para_312","para_313","para_314","para_315"]},{"title":"Apart from the superfluity problem, Justice offers almost no response to the language in","paragraphs":["para_317","para_318","para_319","para_320","para_321","para_322","para_323","para_324","para_325","para_326","para_327","para_328","para_329"]},{"title":"Out of interpretive arguments, Justice falls back on the canon of contract interpretation","paragraphs":["para_331","para_332","para_333","para_334","para_335"]},{"title":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 12","paragraphs":["para_337"]},{"title":"2009). The phrase “Total Indebtedness” unambiguously includes past-due payments that arise","paragraphs":["para_339"]},{"title":"B. Meaning of the Personal Guaranty","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Even if the phrase “Total Indebtedness” in the Amended Agreement has this dynamic","paragraphs":["para_342","para_343","para_344","para_345","para_346","para_347"]},{"title":"The parties disagree over the meaning of the phrase “the amount of the Total","paragraphs":["para_349","para_350","para_351"]},{"title":"According to Lexon, this phrase signals that Justice remains on the hook only for Total","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Indebtedness—not for other things. It thus caps his liability at the full amount of that","paragraphs":["para_354"]},{"title":"We again agree with Lexon. We must give the words in the limitation on liability their","paragraphs":["para_356","para_357","para_358","para_359","para_360"]},{"title":"Dictionary of the English Language 60 (5th ed. 2018). And “specified in the","paragraphs":["para_362","para_363","para_364"]},{"title":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 13","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"2026). As we have explained, that sum unambiguously equals “Remaining Indebtedness","paragraphs":["para_367","para_368","para_369","para_370","para_371"]},{"title":"The other half of the limitation on liability confirms this reading. This half does","paragraphs":["para_373","para_374","para_375","para_376","para_377","para_378","para_379","para_380"]},{"title":"Justice’s responses again lack merit. He first claims that the only “amount” of Total","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Indebtedness “specified” in the Amended Agreement is $3,538,400.75. But just because that","paragraphs":["para_383"]},{"title":"Agreement does not make it the entire amount specified. Suppose that a contract expressly","paragraphs":["para_385","para_386","para_387","para_388","para_389","para_390","para_391","para_392","para_393","para_394"]},{"title":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 14","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Justice next claims that this reading “places no cap on” his liability for premiums and","paragraphs":["para_397"]},{"title":"Justice himself points out, however, the Amended Agreement in Paragraph 3(d) requires the","paragraphs":["para_399","para_400","para_401","para_402"]},{"title":"C. Duration of the Amended Agreement","paragraphs":["para_404"]},{"title":"This dispute matters because Paragraph 3(c) of the Amended Agreement defines New","paragraphs":["para_406"]},{"title":"J.A. 152 (emphasis added). So Senator Justice’s guaranty would not cover past-due premiums","paragraphs":["para_408","para_409","para_410","para_411","para_412","para_413","para_414","para_415"]},{"title":"Lexon has the better reading for the third time. Contracts sometimes do not identify a","paragraphs":["para_417","para_418","para_419","para_420","para_421"]},{"title":"Amended Agreement does not set a deadline for the Companies’ duty to pay “Total","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Indebtedness.” J.A. 151–53. Rather, Paragraph 3(b) states that the Companies must pay","paragraphs":["para_424"]},{"title":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 15","paragraphs":["para_426","para_427","para_428","para_429"]},{"title":"Indeed, the contingent end for the $200,000 monthly premium payments stands in","paragraphs":["para_431"]},{"title":"Amended Agreement required the Companies to pay $250,000 a month toward collateral and to","paragraphs":["para_433","para_434","para_435","para_436"]},{"title":"Tr., R.119, PageID 2090–91. But this fixed due date for collateral does not apply to the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Companies’ duty to pay the Total Indebtedness. And, as we have said, courts presume that a","paragraphs":["para_439","para_440","para_441","para_442","para_443"]},{"title":"The difference between the original agreement (from March 2018) and the Amended","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Agreement (from February 2019) confirms the same point. The original agreement set a two-","paragraphs":["para_446","para_447","para_448","para_449","para_450"]},{"title":"We thus would undercut the Amended Agreement’s “main object” (to remedy these breaches) if","paragraphs":["para_452","para_453"]},{"title":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 16","paragraphs":["para_455","para_456"]},{"title":"Justice’s contrary view—that the obligation to pay off the Total Indebtedness ended in","paragraphs":["para_458","para_459","para_460","para_461"]},{"title":"Justice next argues that if the Companies had not incurred any New Indebtedness by","paragraphs":["para_463","para_464"]},{"title":"Amended Agreement ended with the October 2021 due date for the collateral. Yet the Amended","paragraphs":["para_466","para_467","para_468","para_469","para_470"]},{"title":"Unable to rely on the Amended Agreement’s language, Justice falls back on a canon of","paragraphs":["para_472","para_473","para_474","para_475","para_476","para_477","para_478","para_479","para_480","para_481","para_482","para_483"]},{"title":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 17","paragraphs":["para_485","para_486"]},{"title":"Justice responds that the Companies will always lack the resources to pay off their Total","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Indebtedness, so the Amended Agreement will practically last forever even if its language","paragraphs":["para_489","para_490","para_491","para_492"]},{"title":"Justice next suggests that Paragraph 3(d) of the Amended Agreement shows that it cannot","paragraphs":["para_494","para_495","para_496","para_497","para_498","para_499","para_500","para_501","para_502","para_503","para_504","para_505","para_506","para_507","para_508","para_509"]},{"title":"Lastly, Justice argues that we conflate the Companies’ liability to pay the amounts that","paragraphs":["para_511","para_512","para_513"]},{"title":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 18","paragraphs":["para_515","para_516","para_517"]},{"title":"At day’s end, we may not consider whether it was “wise or unwise, reasonable or","paragraphs":["para_519","para_520","para_521","para_522","para_523","para_524"]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"File Name: 26a0281p.06","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"LEXON INSURANCE COMPANY,","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"Plaintiff-Appellee,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"JAMES C. JUSTICE, II,","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"Defendant-Appellant.","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"┐","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"┘","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"No. 25-6096","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"No. 3:23-cv-00772—Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., District Judge.","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"Argued: July 30, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"Decided and Filed: October 9, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"Before: STRANCH, BUSH, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"_________________","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"COUNSEL","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"ARGUED: David R. Pogue, CAREY DOUGLAS KESSLER & RUBY, PLLC, Charleston,","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"West Virginia, for Appellant. Jason M. Halper, VINSON & ELKINS LLP, New York, New","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"York, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: David R. Pogue, Steven R. Ruby, CAREY DOUGLAS","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"KESSLER & RUBY, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, Peter C. Robison, LEWIS","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"THOMASON P.C., Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant. Jason M. Halper, Sara E. Brauerman,","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"Timbre L. Shriver, VINSON & ELKINS LLP, New York, New York, W. Brantley Phillips, Jr.,","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"Garrah Carter-Mason, BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee.","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"_________________","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"OPINION","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"_________________","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Senator James C. Justice II and his family own and operate","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"several coal companies. These companies obtained bonds from Lexon Insurance Company.","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":">","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 2","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"After the companies fell behind on their premium payments for the bonds, they signed a contract","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"with Lexon agreeing to get up to speed. Senator Justice personally guaranteed these payments as","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"well. But the companies still did not pay the agreed-upon amounts. Lexon thus sued Justice","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"under his personal guaranty. The district court held him liable for about $25 million. Justice","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"now raises arguments about the meaning of the contract and the guaranty to challenge a portion","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"of this award. Yet we agree with the district court’s readings of these documents. We thus","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"affirm.","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"I","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"States typically prohibit coal companies from mining coal without a permit. To obtain a","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"permit, a company often must secure a surety bond. “A surety bond is a tripartite contract.” Tr.,","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"R.119, PageID 1956. The insured (typically, a coal company) owes duties of performance to an","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"“obligee” (typically, a state agency). Id., PageID 1956–57. When applying for a permit, for","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"example, coal companies often promise to restore the mined land “to its preexisting condition”","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"after they complete their operations. Id., PageID 1957. And the surety (typically, an insurer)","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"will “guarantee the faithful performance” of the insured’s duties, including this reclamation duty.","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"Id. Unlike a typical insurer, a surety cannot “cancel[]” a bond on its own if a company fails to","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"pay the premiums. Id., PageID 1959–60. So the bond “remains in full force” until the obligee","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"releases it or the company meets its obligations. Id., PageID 1959–60, 1963. Also unlike a","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"typical insurer, the surety may seek reimbursement from companies if they fail “to honor their","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"obligations” and thereby require the surety to cover them. Id., PageID 1959.","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"This case involves two of the three parties to the surety-bond relationship. “Lexon is a","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"surety bond provider.” Id., PageID 1953. When Lexon issues a surety bond to a coal company,","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"it assumes the risk that the company might breach its reclamation duties at the end of the mining.","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"This bond thus exposes Lexon to potentially massive liability. Lexon takes two steps to mitigate","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"its financial exposure. It requires coal companies seeking a bond to agree to pay annual","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"premiums. And Lexon requires these companies to post adequate collateral that it may use for","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"reimbursement if the companies require it to pay for any of their obligations.","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 3","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"Several coal companies and affiliates owned by Senator Justice and his family (along","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"with one other affiliate) sit on the insured side of the surety relationship. We will call all these","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"entities “the Companies.” The Companies began to obtain surety bonds from Lexon in 2010.","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"The bonds exposed Lexon to the Companies’ obligations to regulators, which have consistently","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"exceeded $100 million in risk. When creating each bond, Lexon and the Companies entered into","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"general indemnity agreements. These agreements required the Companies to pay annual","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"premiums.","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"The Companies’ financial condition has deteriorated during their relationship with","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"Lexon. They paid their premiums on time for years. Over the past decade, however, the coal","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"industry has faced a “difficult” environment and “depressed” coal market. Tr., R.120, PageID","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"2213–14. As a result, the Companies started to miss premium payments around 2016. Lexon","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"responded by requiring them to set aside collateral. This collateral eventually reached almost","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"$20 million. By early 2018, the collateral had declined to about $5 million. And although the","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"Companies still had not made all their required premium payments, they sought to reduce the","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"collateral even more.","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"In March 2018, therefore, Lexon and the Companies signed an agreement designed to","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"release the Companies’ collateral and help them catch up on past-due premiums. Lexon agreed","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"to release $5 million of collateral so that the Companies could pay down certain debts (including","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"reclamation expenses that would reduce various Lexon-backed obligations). In exchange, the","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"Companies agreed to post $5 million in new collateral within six months and to pay the $3","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"million they owed in past-due premiums within two months. As a condition to this agreement,","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"Lexon required Senator Justice to personally guarantee the Companies’ duties to provide the","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"collateral and pay the premiums.","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"By early 2019, though, the Companies still had not met their obligations under this","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"agreement. They had failed to post any of the $5 million in collateral. And they still owed","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"$1.025 million in past-due premiums.","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"Lexon and the Companies thus entered what we will call the “Amended Agreement”—","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"the one that matters for this appeal—in February 2019. This agreement modified both the","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 4","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"Companies’ collateral obligations and their premium obligations. As for the collateral","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"obligations, the Amended Agreement required the Companies to post $20 million in new","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"collateral by April 1, 2021. They agreed to fund this collateral in the allotted time by paying","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"monthly installments of $250,000, selling some equipment, and making larger periodic payments","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"on certain dates.","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"As for the premium obligations, the Amended Agreement first identified the amounts that","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"the Companies owed. It calculated the “Remaining Indebtedness” (the amount that the","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"Companies owed under the prior agreement) as $1,025,000. Joint App’x (J.A.) 151. In the","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"meantime, though, the Companies had continued to miss premium payments. The Amended","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"Agreement thus made clear that “additional premium of $2,513,400.75 [was then] due and owing","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"(the ‘New Indebtedness’).” Id. The Amended Agreement also contemplated that “additional","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"amounts for premium may become due during the term of this Agreement,” so this New","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"Indebtedness would increase if the Companies missed current premium payments by 60 days.","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"Id. at 152–53. The Amended Agreement added: “The Remaining Indebtedness together with the","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"New Indebtedness is equal to $3,538,400.75 (the ‘Total Indebtedness’).” Id. at 151. The","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"Companies agreed to pay $200,000 a month toward this “Total Indebtedness” until it was “paid","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"in full[.]” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"Before entering into this agreement with the Companies, Lexon required Senator Justice","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"to give another personal guaranty. If the Companies breached the Amended Agreement, Justice","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"promised to repay the amounts of unpaid collateral and premiums due “within three (3) business","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"days” of receiving Lexon’s written demand. J.A. 139. But the guaranty capped Justice’s","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"payment obligations. As relevant here, it “limited” his liability “to a total sum equal to (i) twenty","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"million U.S. dollars ($20,000,000.00) plus (ii) the amount of the Total Indebtedness specified in","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"the” Amended Agreement. J.A. 141–42.","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"Unfortunately, the Companies’ conditions did not improve after the Amended","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"Agreement. When they continued to struggle to make timely payments, they asked Lexon for an","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"amended payment schedule. Lexon consented twice. In two side letter agreements from January","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"and March 2020, it adjusted the Companies’ payment obligations. Lexon suspended the","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"obligation to make the monthly $250,000 collateral payment for six months, pushing back the","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 5","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"requirement to pay the full $20 million to October 1, 2021. But Lexon asked the Companies to","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"temporarily increase their premium payments. The $200,000 monthly amount was not “closing","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"the gap” on the total past-due premiums because the Companies were failing to pay all their","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"current premiums (which became past due after 60 days). J.A. 298. The January 2020 side","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"agreement thus required the Companies to make six monthly premium payments of $250,000","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"(not $200,000).","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"Even after entering into these additional letter agreements, the Companies still could not","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"meet their collateral and premium obligations. Ultimately, the Companies paid only $5.75","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"million of the $20 million they owed in collateral and made no collateral payments after","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"December 2019. Similarly, the Companies paid $4.21 million in premiums starting in February","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"2019, but they stopped making any premium payments in March 2021. Lexon thus sent the","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"Companies default letters that demanded payment on the outstanding collateral and premiums.","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"Yet the Companies never paid the entire amounts owed.","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"When the Companies did not pay, Lexon turned to Senator Justice. In July 2023, Lexon","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"sent him a letter demanding payment of the outstanding collateral and premium obligations plus","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"interest. Under the guaranty, Justice had three days to satisfy these amounts. But he declined as","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"well.","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"Lexon thus sued Justice to enforce the guaranty. At the summary-judgment stage, the","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"district court largely ruled for Lexon. See Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice, 2024 WL 4960006, at *21","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"(M.D. Tenn. Dec. 3, 2024). It held that Justice breached the guaranty as a matter of law when he","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"failed to pay upon Lexon’s written demand. See id. at *5–7. But it also held that a genuine issue","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"of material fact existed on Lexon’s damages. See id. at *8. The guaranty limited Justice’s","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"liability to a combination of $20,000,000.00 for the collateral plus the amount of the Total","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"Indebtedness on the past-due premiums. See id. The court concluded as a matter of law that","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"Justice owed $14.25 million for the collateral ($20 million minus the $5.75 million that the","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"Companies already paid). See id. at *11. But it found a dispute of fact over the amount of","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"“Total Indebtedness” owed to Lexon for past-due premiums. See id.","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 6","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"The court held a two-day bench trial on damages. See Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice, 808","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"F. Supp. 3d 841, 845 (M.D. Tenn. 2025). It recognized that the initial “Total Indebtedness” (the","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"amount of overdue premiums) equaled $3,538,400.75 at the time of the Amended Agreement.","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"See id. at 851. It also recognized that the Companies had paid $4.21 million in premium","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"payments—more than the initial amount of Total Indebtedness. See id. at 852. But it interpreted","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"the phrase “Total Indebtedness” to represent a dynamic figure that would increase every time the","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"Companies missed a current premium payment by 60 days. See id. at 853–62. It next held that","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"the Amended Agreement’s “term” extended until the Companies “paid” the collateral and","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"premium obligations “in full.” Id. at 863–67. These interpretations clarified the amount of Total","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"Indebtedness owed. Since the Amended Agreement’s start in February 2019, the Companies had","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"accrued $7,391,308.49 in additional tardy premiums. Id. at 867. The Total Indebtedness thus","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"equaled $10,929,709.24 (the initial $3,538,400.75 plus $7,391,308.49). See id. (According to","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"the testimony of a Lexon witness, this figure “account[ed] for any dollars previously paid” by the","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"Companies (which we take to include the $4.21 million). Tr., R.120, PageID 2200.) When","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"combined with the $14.25 million of collateral that Justice owed, the court entered judgment","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"against him for $25,179,709.24 (plus interest). See Lexon, 808 F. Supp. 3d at 869–70.","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"II","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"On appeal, the parties debate three questions about the meaning of the Amended","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"Agreement and Senator Justice’s personal guaranty. First: Does the Amended Agreement define","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"“Total Indebtedness” as a static amount of $3,538,400.75 (as Justice says) or as a dynamic","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"amount that increases when the Companies miss additional premium payments (as Lexon says)?","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"Second: If Lexon’s view of “Total Indebtedness” is correct, does Justice’s guaranty nevertheless","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"cap his liability at $3,538,400.75? And third: Does the Amended Agreement’s term end on a","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"specific date (as Justice argues) or on the date that the Companies satisfy their obligations (as","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"Lexon argues)?","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"All three contract questions follow the same ground rules. The parties agree (and so we","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"may assume) that West Virginia contract law governs these questions. See Dahdah v. Rocket","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"Mortg., LLC, 166 F.4th 556, 566 (6th Cir. 2026). Under West Virginia law (as under most","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"States’ contract laws), courts must decide whether a contract’s language has one unambiguous","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 7","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"meaning without resort to evidence outside the contract. See Miller v. WesBanco Bank, Inc., 859","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"S.E.2d 306, 328 (W. Va. 2021); cf. VCST Int’l B.V. v. BorgWarner Noblesville, LLC, 142 F.4th","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"393, 401 (6th Cir. 2025). If the contract is unambiguous, courts must apply it as written. See","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"Miller, 859 S.E.2d at 328. But if a contract is ambiguous, courts may then consider extrinsic","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"evidence to determine its meaning. See id.","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"For each of the three questions at issue on appeal, the district court took two alternative","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"routes to the same answer. To start, the court held—as a matter of law—that the agreements had","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"one unambiguous meaning favoring Lexon. See Lexon, 808 F. Supp. 3d at 854–57, 862–65. In","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"the alternative, it found—as a matter of fact—that the extrinsic evidence confirmed its","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"interpretations even assuming the agreements were ambiguous. See id. at 857–62, 865–67. We","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"typically review the court’s first holding de novo and its second holding under the deferential","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"clear-error standard. See, e.g., In re AmTrust Fin. Corp., 694 F.3d 741, 749 (6th Cir. 2012);","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"Campbell v. Potash Corp. of Sask., Inc., 238 F.3d 792, 797 (6th Cir. 2001). But we need not","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"consider any extrinsic evidence in this case because we agree with the district court’s first","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"holding: each of the three contract questions has one unambiguous answer.","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"A. Meaning of Total Indebtedness","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"The parties first disagree over what the phrase “Total Indebtedness” means in the","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"Amended Agreement. Paragraph 3 of the Amended Agreement contains three important terms:","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"“Remaining Indebtedness,” “New Indebtedness,” and “Total Indebtedness.” J.A. 151. The","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"parties do not dispute the meaning of the first two terms. They agree that Paragraph 3 defines","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"the phrase “Remaining Indebtedness” as a fixed amount: “The Parties Agree the Remaining","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"Indebtedness is equal to One Million Twenty Five Thousand U.S. dollars ($1,025,000.00).” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"This number represents the amount of past-due premiums that the Companies had owed at the","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"time of the original agreement in March 2018 and that remained unpaid at the time of the","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"Amended Agreement in February 2019.","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"Next, the parties agree that the phrase “New Indebtedness” equals the sum of two","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"components—one of which we will call the “static component” and the other of which we will","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"call the “changing component.” As for the static component, the Companies continued to miss","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 8","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"premium payments from the time of the original agreement (March 2018) to the time of the","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"Amended Agreement (February 2019). These missed payments added up to an additional","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"$2,513,400.75. Paragraph 3 of the Amended Agreement included this sum as part of the “New","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"Indebtedness”: “The Parties also agree that in addition to the Remaining Indebtedness, additional","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"premium of $2,513,400.75 is now due and owing (the ‘New Indebtedness’).” J.A. 151.","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"As for the changing component, Lexon worried that the Companies would continue to","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"miss premium payments after the Amended Agreement’s effective date in February 2019. So a","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"later provision of the Amended Agreement—Paragraph 3(c)—says that New Indebtedness would","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"increase for any current premiums that became 60 days or more past due:","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"The [Companies] recognize that additional amounts for premium may become","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"due during the term of this Agreement and they hereby agree that the New","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"Indebtedness shall be increased in like amount (e.g., if new premium is due on","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"March 2, 2019 in the amount of $10,000.00, the New Indebtedness is increased by","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"$10,000.00). Additional amounts for premiums under this sub-paragraph are those","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"premiums that are sixty (60) days or more past due.","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"Id. at 152–53 (emphasis added).","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"But the parties part ways once we turn to the third term: “Total Indebtedness.”","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"Paragraph 3 of the Amended Agreement introduces this term in parentheses after a critical","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"sentence: “The Remaining Indebtedness together with the New Indebtedness is equal to","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"$3,538,400.75 (the ‘Total Indebtedness’).” Id. at 151. According to Senator Justice, the phrase","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"in parentheses (“Total Indebtedness”) modifies—and refers to—only the specific number that it","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"sits immediately next to: $3,538,400.75. Under this view, Total Indebtedness equals that precise,","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"and static, amount. According to Lexon, this phrase should modify the entire sentence:","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"Remaining Indebtedness + New Indebtedness = Total Indebtedness. Under this alternative view,","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"because New Indebtedness includes additional accrued premiums 60 days or more past due,","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"Total Indebtedness likewise increases to account for these ongoing tardy premiums.","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"We agree with Lexon for two reasons. First, West Virginia contract law requires courts","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"to read a contract “as a whole” and give effect to “all” its provisions. Antero Res. Corp. v.","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"Directional One Servs. Inc. USA, 873 S.E.2d 832, 842 (W. Va. 2022) (citations modified); Bruce","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"McDonald Holding Co. v. Addington, Inc., 825 S.E.2d 779, 784–85 (W. Va. 2019). And","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 9","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"Lexon’s view better fits the Amended Agreement as a whole. Under Paragraph 3(b), the","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"Companies “agree[d], jointly and severally, to pay Lexon the Total Indebtedness” in two","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"particular ways: by paying $200,000 per month and by selling equipment. J.A. 151–52","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"(emphasis added). The Amended Agreement nowhere made the Companies jointly and severally","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"liable to pay the New Indebtedness. So if Total Indebtedness did not include the dynamic","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"component of New Indebtedness, the Companies would not have agreed to pay any past-due bills","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"after February 2019. What, then, would have been the point of Paragraph 3(c), which increases","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"the New Indebtedness to account for these future late payments? Senator Justice’s account","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"would make this paragraph futile—something West Virginia courts try to avoid. See Antero, 873","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"S.E.2d at 842.","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"Second, West Virginia law directs courts to read two contracts on the same subject matter","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"in the same way if they have a clear relationship to each other. See id. at 841–42; TD Auto Fin.","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"LLC v. Reynolds, 842 S.E.2d 783, 788 (W. Va. 2020). Senator Justice does not challenge the","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"district court’s conclusion that this rule applies to the Amended Agreement and his personal","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"guaranty. See Lexon, 808 F. Supp. 3d at 853. And his personal guaranty removes all doubt over","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"whether Total Indebtedness includes the changing component of New Indebtedness. In","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"particular, the description of the Amended Agreement in the guaranty’s general recitals shows","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"that the amount of the “Total Indebtedness” can change. One of the recitals states that the","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"Companies promised to pay $200,000 per month “until the Total Indebtedness (including any","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"new premiums becoming due during the term of the Amended . . . Agreement) is paid in full[.]”","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"J.A. 138 (emphasis added). This recital thus confirms that Total Indebtedness could increase","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"with new premiums that become past due while the Amended Agreement remained in effect.","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"That is, it makes clear that Total Indebtedness is not a specific number and includes all","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"components of the New Indebtedness. In short, the phrase “Total Indebtedness” unambiguously","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"encompasses New Indebtedness and thus encompasses additional late payments during the","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"Amended Agreement’s term.","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"Senator Justice’s responses do not convince us otherwise. As we have said, he notes that","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"the key sentence in Paragraph 3 introduces the phrase “Total Indebtedness” in parentheses next","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"to a specific amount: “The Remaining Indebtedness together with the New Indebtedness is equal","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 10","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"to $3,538,400.75 (the ‘Total Indebtedness’).” J.A. 151. He claims that one could read this","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"sentence to define Total Indebtedness as that specific number rather than the combination of","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"Remaining and New Indebtedness. We agree that the phrase might be ambiguous if we read this","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"sentence in isolation. We also agree that Lexon could have eliminated even this initial","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"uncertainty if it had expressly said that Total Indebtedness means the Remaining Indebtedness","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"plus the New Indebtedness. But West Virginia law requires us to interpret the sentence together","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"with the rest of the Amended Agreement and the related guaranty. See Antero, 873 S.E.2d at","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"841–42. When read through this broader lens, “Total Indebtedness” has a clear meaning. The","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"contrary view would render the changing component of New Indebtedness in Paragraph 3(c)","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"superfluous and read the Amended Agreement to conflict with the guaranty’s use of the term","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"“Total Indebtedness.”","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"Justice challenges our claim that his view would render Paragraph 3(c) superfluous. He","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"points to another provision in the Amended Agreement—Paragraph 3(d)—that requires the","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"Companies to make payments even after they pay off the Total Indebtedness: “At such time as","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"the Total Indebtedness is paid in full, [the Companies] shall pay Lexon (i) any additional","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"premium due, or (ii) Two Hundred Thousand U.S. dollars ($200,000.00) per month, whichever is","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"greater.” J.A. 153. As Justice sees things, the Amended Agreement splits the payment schedule","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"for New Indebtedness. The Companies must pay the fixed component of New Indebtedness","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"under the payment schedule for Total Indebtedness in Paragraph 3(b). But he says that they must","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"pay the changing component of New Indebtedness under Paragraph 3(d)’s schedule.","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"We see three problems with this argument. For one thing, Paragraph 3(d) nowhere refers","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"to “New Indebtedness.” Nor does it refer to the components that make up that phrase: the","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"premium payments that are past due by 60 days. So it is hard to see how this paragraph concerns","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"New Indebtedness. Rather, we agree with the district court that Paragraph 3(d) applies to","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"currently due premiums that the Companies must timely pay. See Lexon, 808 F. Supp. 3d at 857.","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"For another thing, West Virginia courts presume that the same phrase has the “same","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"meaning” throughout a contract. Chitwood v. Farm Bureau Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 188 S.E. 493,","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"495 (W. Va. 1936). Justice’s reading violates this presumption. He reads the Amended","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"Agreement to use the same phrase (“New Indebtedness”) as defining two distinct payment","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 11","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"obligations with two distinct payment schedules. If the parties had intended his approach, they","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"presumably would have defined the changing component of New Indebtedness using a different","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"phrase—such as “Future Indebtedness.”","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"For a third, contrary to Justice’s claim, Paragraph 3(d)’s separate payment provision","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"would not save Paragraph 3(c)’s changing component of New Indebtedness from the superfluity","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"problem that we have identified. Even assuming (contrary to what we have said) that Paragraph","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"3(d)’s reference to “any additional premium due” included payments past due by 60 days, what","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"would be the point of having a discrete paragraph that defines these past-due payments as “New","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"Indebtedness”? Justice does not say. So only our view gives effect to that paragraph.","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"Apart from the superfluity problem, Justice offers almost no response to the language in","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"his guaranty treating Total Indebtedness as covering “any new premiums becoming due during","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"the term of the Amended” Agreement. J.A. 138. In his opening brief, he says that this","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"“inconsistency” “cannot serve as the basis for finding” the Amended Agreement “unambiguous.”","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"Appellant’s Br. 18. To the contrary, basic interpretive rules tell us to read that agreement in a","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"way that renders it “harmonious” with the guaranty. Antero, 873 S.E.2d at 842 (citation","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"modified). Our reading does so. But Justice’s reading creates what he concedes is an","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"“inconsistency.” Appellant’s Br. 18. In his reply brief, then, he switches to the argument that","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"the guaranty’s recital conflicts even with our view of Total Indebtedness because the recital","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"allegedly suggests that this phrase covers currently due premiums—not just past-due ones.","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"Reply Br. 11. But the recital elsewhere makes clear that it is using the phrase Total Indebtedness","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"“as defined in the” Amended Agreement. J.A. 138. So the language “any new premiums","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"becoming due” is best read as shorthand to refer to the qualifying premiums that become due as a","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"result of the Companies’ untimely payment. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"Out of interpretive arguments, Justice falls back on the canon of contract interpretation","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"requiring us to read ambiguous language in an agreement against the drafter (here, Lexon). See","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"State ex rel. Richmond Am. Homes of W. Va., Inc. v. Sanders, 717 S.E.2d 909, 924 & n.61 (W.","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"Va. 2011). Lexon responds that West Virginia courts would not apply this canon to agreements","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"(like those at issue) negotiated by sophisticated parties. But we need not opine on the canon’s","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"scope. Because the canon applies only if we find the Amended Agreement ambiguous, it has no","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 12","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"application here. See Blake v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 685 S.E.2d 895, 900–01 (W. Va.","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"2009). The phrase “Total Indebtedness” unambiguously includes past-due payments that arise","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"over the life of the Amended Agreement.","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"B. Meaning of the Personal Guaranty","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"Even if the phrase “Total Indebtedness” in the Amended Agreement has this dynamic","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"meaning, the parties next dispute whether Senator Justice’s guaranty covers the entire amount of","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"that debt. The guaranty makes Justice liable “to pay all or any part of the” Total Indebtedness","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"that the Companies fail to cover. J.A. 138–39. But the guaranty also includes a paragraph that","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"limits Justice’s liability. The relevant provision limits Justice’s guaranty “to a total sum equal to","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"(i) twenty million U.S. dollars ($20,000,000.00) plus (ii) the amount of the Total Indebtedness","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"specified in the Amended . . . Agreement.” Id. at 141–42.","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"The parties disagree over the meaning of the phrase “the amount of the Total","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"Indebtedness specified in the Amended . . . Agreement.” Id. at 142. According to Justice, the","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"precise “amount” of Total Indebtedness “specified” in the Amended Agreement is","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"$3,538,400.75. Id. So understood, the limitation caps his lability at this specific amount.","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"According to Lexon, this phrase signals that Justice remains on the hook only for Total","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"Indebtedness—not for other things. It thus caps his liability at the full amount of that","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"indebtedness.","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"We again agree with Lexon. We must give the words in the limitation on liability their","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"“plain and ordinary meaning” under West Virginia law. Hull Prop. Grp. v. Quarrier St LLC,","paragraph_id":"para_356"},{"text":"915 S.E.2d 11, 19 (W. Va. Ct. App. 2025) (citation modified). And the phrase “the amount of","paragraph_id":"para_357"},{"text":"the Total Indebtedness specified in the Amended . . . Agreement” unambiguously covers the","paragraph_id":"para_358"},{"text":"entire dollar value of that indebtedness—not part of it. J.A. 142. An “amount” is simply a","paragraph_id":"para_359"},{"text":"“number,” a “sum,” or the “total of two or more quantities” in “the aggregate[.]” Am. Heritage","paragraph_id":"para_360"},{"text":"Dictionary of the English Language 60 (5th ed. 2018). And “specified in the","paragraph_id":"para_361"},{"text":"Amended . . . Agreement” is a participle phrase that tells a reader which “amount” of Total","paragraph_id":"para_362"},{"text":"Indebtedness Justice is liable for: the sum that the Amended Agreement “state[s] explicitly” as","paragraph_id":"para_363"},{"text":"the Total Indebtedness. Id. at 1682; see Chicago Manual of Style ¶¶ 5.94, 5.115 (online ed.","paragraph_id":"para_364"},{"text":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 13","paragraph_id":"para_365"},{"text":"2026). As we have explained, that sum unambiguously equals “Remaining Indebtedness","paragraph_id":"para_366"},{"text":"together with the New Indebtedness[.]” J.A. 151. So the words “amount” and “specified”","paragraph_id":"para_367"},{"text":"simply direct the reader back to the Amended Agreement to identify the sum that Justice owes.","paragraph_id":"para_368"},{"text":"These words do not restrict his liability to only a part of the amount of Total Indebtedness","paragraph_id":"para_369"},{"text":"specified in the Amended Agreement. Cf. Fraternal Ord. of Police, Lodge No. 69 v. City of","paragraph_id":"para_370"},{"text":"Fairmont, 468 S.E.2d 712, 718 (W. Va. 1996).","paragraph_id":"para_371"},{"text":"The other half of the limitation on liability confirms this reading. This half does","paragraph_id":"para_372"},{"text":"specifically “limit[]” Justice’s liability to $20,000,000.00 for the Companies’ collateral","paragraph_id":"para_373"},{"text":"obligations. J.A. 142. It thus shows that the parties knew how to include a precise number.","paragraph_id":"para_374"},{"text":"When it comes to Total Indebtedness, by contrast, the limitation on liability does not list the","paragraph_id":"para_375"},{"text":"specific number that Justice prefers: $3,538,400.75. It instead refers generally to the “amount”","paragraph_id":"para_376"},{"text":"of Total Indebtedness “specified”—likely because that amount could change over time. Id. This","paragraph_id":"para_377"},{"text":"“difference” between the two halves of the limitation on liability “impl[ies]” that the parties","paragraph_id":"para_378"},{"text":"understood Total Indebtedness not as a static amount, but as a dynamic one that the Amended","paragraph_id":"para_379"},{"text":"Agreement identified how to calculate. Gallo v. Moen Inc., 813 F.3d 265, 274 (6th Cir. 2016).","paragraph_id":"para_380"},{"text":"Justice’s responses again lack merit. He first claims that the only “amount” of Total","paragraph_id":"para_381"},{"text":"Indebtedness “specified” in the Amended Agreement is $3,538,400.75. But just because that","paragraph_id":"para_382"},{"text":"amount is the only part of the Total Indebtedness reduced to numerals in the Amended","paragraph_id":"para_383"},{"text":"Agreement does not make it the entire amount specified. Suppose that a contract expressly","paragraph_id":"para_384"},{"text":"defined “Total Indebtedness” to mean $5 million plus 5% annual interest. If a separate guaranty","paragraph_id":"para_385"},{"text":"then limited a guarantor’s liability to the “amount” of Total Indebtedness “specified” in that","paragraph_id":"para_386"},{"text":"contract, nobody would read this language as limiting the guarantor’s liability to just the $5","paragraph_id":"para_387"},{"text":"million—without the interest. This case should be no different. The Amended Agreement","paragraph_id":"para_388"},{"text":"“specifie[s]” the “amount” of Total Indebtedness in part as a precise number and in part as a","paragraph_id":"para_389"},{"text":"changing number that depends on future events. J.A. 142. So both “amount[s]” are equally","paragraph_id":"para_390"},{"text":"“specified” in the Amended Agreement. Id. Nor does this reading make the words “amount”","paragraph_id":"para_391"},{"text":"and “specified” superfluous—as Justice also suggests. Those words remove all doubt that the","paragraph_id":"para_392"},{"text":"phrase “Total Indebtedness” in the guaranty takes the same meaning as the same phrase in the","paragraph_id":"para_393"},{"text":"Amended Agreement.","paragraph_id":"para_394"},{"text":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 14","paragraph_id":"para_395"},{"text":"Justice next claims that this reading “places no cap on” his liability for premiums and","paragraph_id":"para_396"},{"text":"thus “defeats the manifest purpose” of the limitation on liability. Appellant’s Br. 10–12. As","paragraph_id":"para_397"},{"text":"Justice himself points out, however, the Amended Agreement in Paragraph 3(d) requires the","paragraph_id":"para_398"},{"text":"Companies to continue to pay premiums even after “Total Indebtedness is paid in full[.]” J.A.","paragraph_id":"para_399"},{"text":"153. The limitation on liability makes clear that Justice is not on the hook for these premiums.","paragraph_id":"para_400"},{"text":"Just because it does not limit his liability as much as he would have preferred does not render it","paragraph_id":"para_401"},{"text":"meaningless.","paragraph_id":"para_402"},{"text":"C. Duration of the Amended Agreement","paragraph_id":"para_403"},{"text":"The parties lastly dispute the term (that is, the duration) of the Amended Agreement.","paragraph_id":"para_404"},{"text":"This dispute matters because Paragraph 3(c) of the Amended Agreement defines New","paragraph_id":"para_405"},{"text":"Indebtedness to include past-due premiums that arise “during the term of this Agreement[.]”","paragraph_id":"para_406"},{"text":"J.A. 152 (emphasis added). So Senator Justice’s guaranty would not cover past-due premiums","paragraph_id":"para_407"},{"text":"that arise after that term. Both sides agree that the Amended Agreement does not identify a","paragraph_id":"para_408"},{"text":"specific end date. But they disagree over what to make of this fact. According to Justice, the","paragraph_id":"para_409"},{"text":"Companies agreed to provide the $20 million in collateral by April 1, 2021—a deadline that the","paragraph_id":"para_410"},{"text":"side letter agreements later extended to October 1, 2021. He thus views October 1, 2021, as a","paragraph_id":"para_411"},{"text":"“reasonable” end of the term. Appellant’s Br. 25. By that date, he adds, the Total Indebtedness","paragraph_id":"para_412"},{"text":"approximated only $3 million. According to Lexon, the Amended Agreement continued until","paragraph_id":"para_413"},{"text":"the Companies paid the Total Indebtedness in full. Under this view, Justice does not dispute that","paragraph_id":"para_414"},{"text":"he would owe the $10.9 million that the district court awarded.","paragraph_id":"para_415"},{"text":"Lexon has the better reading for the third time. Contracts sometimes do not identify a","paragraph_id":"para_416"},{"text":"fixed end date and instead make clear that they end “upon the occurrence of an event[.]” 17B","paragraph_id":"para_417"},{"text":"C.J.S. Contracts § 608, Westlaw (database updated Apr. 2026); 11 Williston on Contracts § 31:5","paragraph_id":"para_418"},{"text":"(4th ed.), Westlaw (database updated May 2026) (discussing Warner-Lambert Pharm. Co. v.","paragraph_id":"para_419"},{"text":"John J. Reynolds, Inc., 178 F. Supp. 655, 661–62 (S.D.N.Y. 1959), aff’d, 280 F.2d 197 (2d Cir.","paragraph_id":"para_420"},{"text":"1960)); Kaufman v. Catzen, 130 S.E. 292, 295 (W. Va. 1925). This principle applies here. The","paragraph_id":"para_421"},{"text":"Amended Agreement does not set a deadline for the Companies’ duty to pay “Total","paragraph_id":"para_422"},{"text":"Indebtedness.” J.A. 151–53. Rather, Paragraph 3(b) states that the Companies must pay","paragraph_id":"para_423"},{"text":"$200,000 a month “until the Total Indebtedness is paid in full[.]” Id. at 151 (emphasis added).","paragraph_id":"para_424"},{"text":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 15","paragraph_id":"para_425"},{"text":"When used as a conjunction, the word “until” means “up to the time that” the identified event","paragraph_id":"para_426"},{"text":"occurs. Am. Heritage, supra, at 1901. This language shows that the Companies’ duty to pay","paragraph_id":"para_427"},{"text":"continues until their Total Indebtedness sits at zero. So the Amended Agreement’s “term” lasts","paragraph_id":"para_428"},{"text":"at least that long. J.A. 152.","paragraph_id":"para_429"},{"text":"Indeed, the contingent end for the $200,000 monthly premium payments stands in","paragraph_id":"para_430"},{"text":"contrast to the fixed end for the Companies’ obligation to pay $20 million in collateral. The","paragraph_id":"para_431"},{"text":"Amended Agreement required the Companies to pay $250,000 a month toward collateral and to","paragraph_id":"para_432"},{"text":"sell certain equipment to fund this obligation. But the parties recognized that these options might","paragraph_id":"para_433"},{"text":"take too long to pay the collateral. So they set hard due dates for larger collateral payments—","paragraph_id":"para_434"},{"text":"including the requirement to pay the full $20 million “on or before April 1, 2021.” Id. at 150–51.","paragraph_id":"para_435"},{"text":"And the side letter agreements then extended this deadline to October 1, 2021. Id. at 318–20;","paragraph_id":"para_436"},{"text":"Tr., R.119, PageID 2090–91. But this fixed due date for collateral does not apply to the","paragraph_id":"para_437"},{"text":"Companies’ duty to pay the Total Indebtedness. And, as we have said, courts presume that a","paragraph_id":"para_438"},{"text":"“difference” in language “impl[ies]” a difference in meaning. Gallo, 813 F.3d at 274. So,","paragraph_id":"para_439"},{"text":"reading the contract “as a whole,” the Amended Agreement’s term must extend at least “up to","paragraph_id":"para_440"},{"text":"the time” that Total Indebtedness is “paid in full” even if the Companies paid the collateral in","paragraph_id":"para_441"},{"text":"October 2021. Antero Res., 873 S.E.2d at 842 (citation modified); Am. Heritage, supra, at 1901;","paragraph_id":"para_442"},{"text":"J.A. 151.","paragraph_id":"para_443"},{"text":"The difference between the original agreement (from March 2018) and the Amended","paragraph_id":"para_444"},{"text":"Agreement (from February 2019) confirms the same point. The original agreement set a two-","paragraph_id":"para_445"},{"text":"month deadline to pay the $3 million in past-due premiums. J.A. 52–55. But the Companies","paragraph_id":"para_446"},{"text":"breached this payment obligation. Id. at 147–48. The Amended Agreement thus did not contain","paragraph_id":"para_447"},{"text":"a similar deadline. It instead contemplated that the Companies might continue to breach their","paragraph_id":"para_448"},{"text":"duty to make premium payments. And it accounted for this risk by adding these future breaches","paragraph_id":"para_449"},{"text":"to the Total Indebtedness that the Companies must pay on an ongoing basis. See id. at 151–53.","paragraph_id":"para_450"},{"text":"We thus would undercut the Amended Agreement’s “main object” (to remedy these breaches) if","paragraph_id":"para_451"},{"text":"we read it to end before the Companies paid off the Total Indebtedness. Henderson Dev. Co. v.","paragraph_id":"para_452"},{"text":"United Fuel Gas Co., 3 S.E.2d 217, 218 (W. Va. 1939); see 11 Williston on Contracts, supra,","paragraph_id":"para_453"},{"text":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 16","paragraph_id":"para_454"},{"text":"§ 32:9; Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 202(1) (A.L.I. 1981); 17B C.J.S. Contracts, supra,","paragraph_id":"para_455"},{"text":"§ 609.","paragraph_id":"para_456"},{"text":"Justice’s contrary view—that the obligation to pay off the Total Indebtedness ended in","paragraph_id":"para_457"},{"text":"October 2021 with the obligation to pay the collateral—flouts the Amended Agreement’s text.","paragraph_id":"para_458"},{"text":"This October 2021 deadline applies only to the collateral. So Justice would have the Amended","paragraph_id":"para_459"},{"text":"Agreement end even if the Companies had not paid the Total Indebtedness “in full”—contrary to","paragraph_id":"para_460"},{"text":"their agreement “to pay Lexon” $200,000 a month “until” that point. J.A. 151.","paragraph_id":"para_461"},{"text":"Justice next argues that if the Companies had not incurred any New Indebtedness by","paragraph_id":"para_462"},{"text":"systematically missing current premiums, they would have paid off the original amount of Total","paragraph_id":"para_463"},{"text":"Indebtedness ($3,538,400.75) by August 2020. So he views it as reasonable to assume that the","paragraph_id":"para_464"},{"text":"Amended Agreement ended with the October 2021 due date for the collateral. Yet the Amended","paragraph_id":"para_465"},{"text":"Agreement also made clear that the Total Indebtedness would grow if the Companies continued","paragraph_id":"para_466"},{"text":"to miss current premium payments. It thus contemplated that the Companies might not pay off","paragraph_id":"para_467"},{"text":"the Total Indebtedness until after they completed their collateral payments. And it would be","paragraph_id":"para_468"},{"text":"unreasonable to read the Amended Agreement’s requirement to pay $200,000 per month as","paragraph_id":"para_469"},{"text":"ending before the Companies satisfied their Total Indebtedness obligation.","paragraph_id":"para_470"},{"text":"Unable to rely on the Amended Agreement’s language, Justice falls back on a canon of","paragraph_id":"para_471"},{"text":"contract law. If a contract to perform on some ongoing basis has no fixed end date, courts","paragraph_id":"para_472"},{"text":"presume that it operates at the will of the parties or for a reasonable time because of the","paragraph_id":"para_473"},{"text":"“traditional” reluctance to “construe ambiguous writings to create lifetime promises.” M & G","paragraph_id":"para_474"},{"text":"Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett, 574 U.S. 427, 441 (2015) (citing 3 Arthur L. Corbin, Corbin on","paragraph_id":"para_475"},{"text":"Contracts § 553, at 216 (1960)); 17B C.J.S. Contracts, supra, § 608; Warner-Lambert Pharm.,","paragraph_id":"para_476"},{"text":"178 F. Supp. at 661. We see two problems with any reliance on this canon. For starters, we do","paragraph_id":"para_477"},{"text":"not find it “ambiguous” that the Amended Agreement continues at least until the Companies pay","paragraph_id":"para_478"},{"text":"off the Total Indebtedness. See Tackett, 574 U.S. at 441. And besides, the Companies’","paragraph_id":"para_479"},{"text":"“promises” to pay $200,000 per month toward Total Indebtedness do not last indefinitely. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_480"},{"text":"That obligation ends at the occurrence of an “event”: the full payment of Total Indebtedness.","paragraph_id":"para_481"},{"text":"Warner-Lambert Pharm., 178 F. Supp. at 661. As another court explained, these types of event-","paragraph_id":"para_482"},{"text":"based contracts fall “in quite a different category” than ones that “omit any point of time or any","paragraph_id":"para_483"},{"text":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 17","paragraph_id":"para_484"},{"text":"condition which would terminate the promisor’s liability[.]” Id. And the concerns with contracts","paragraph_id":"para_485"},{"text":"that last into “perpetuity” apply only to the latter category, not the former one. See id.","paragraph_id":"para_486"},{"text":"Justice responds that the Companies will always lack the resources to pay off their Total","paragraph_id":"para_487"},{"text":"Indebtedness, so the Amended Agreement will practically last forever even if its language","paragraph_id":"para_488"},{"text":"formally shows that it can end. But the Companies’ unfortunate financial predicament provides","paragraph_id":"para_489"},{"text":"no basis to rewrite the contract to help them. As a treatise explains, “the question whether a","paragraph_id":"para_490"},{"text":"bargain is smart or foolish, or economically efficient or disastrous, is not ordinarily a legitimate","paragraph_id":"para_491"},{"text":"subject of judicial inquiry.” 11 Williston on Contracts, supra, § 31:5.","paragraph_id":"para_492"},{"text":"Justice next suggests that Paragraph 3(d) of the Amended Agreement shows that it cannot","paragraph_id":"para_493"},{"text":"end even when the Companies pay off the Total Indebtedness. After “the Total Indebtedness is","paragraph_id":"para_494"},{"text":"paid in full,” Paragraph 3(d) says, the Companies must pay the “greater” of “any additional","paragraph_id":"para_495"},{"text":"premium due” or “$200,000.00” each month. J.A. 153. Yet this paragraph also undercuts","paragraph_id":"para_496"},{"text":"Justice’s argument because it shows that the Amended Agreement might continue after the full","paragraph_id":"para_497"},{"text":"payment of the Total Indebtedness. The paragraph does not show (as Justice claims) that the","paragraph_id":"para_498"},{"text":"agreement could end before that full payment. As the district court explained, Paragraph 3(d)","paragraph_id":"para_499"},{"text":"existed to “bridg[e] a gap” under a scenario where the Companies paid off the Total","paragraph_id":"para_500"},{"text":"Indebtedness before they paid off the $20 million in collateral. Lexon, 808 F. Supp. 3d at 857.","paragraph_id":"para_501"},{"text":"In that scenario, the Companies would have to pay their current premiums or $200,000 until they","paragraph_id":"para_502"},{"text":"paid the collateral in full. See id. And the Amended Agreement (including Paragraph 3(d))","paragraph_id":"para_503"},{"text":"would end at that point. Justice responds that Paragraph 3(d) does not say that its obligations end","paragraph_id":"para_504"},{"text":"with the completion of the collateral payments. True, one might have read this paragraph (unlike","paragraph_id":"para_505"},{"text":"the obligation to pay off the Total Indebtedness) to run perpetually. But even Justice does not","paragraph_id":"para_506"},{"text":"argue for that more expansive reading. What matters here is that Paragraph 3(d) does not","paragraph_id":"para_507"},{"text":"support Justice’s reading that the Amended Agreement could end before the Companies repaid","paragraph_id":"para_508"},{"text":"the Total Indebtedness. That is all we need to say to reject Justice’s claim.","paragraph_id":"para_509"},{"text":"Lastly, Justice argues that we conflate the Companies’ liability to pay the amounts that","paragraph_id":"para_510"},{"text":"the Amended Agreement requires with the agreement’s length when we read it to endure until","paragraph_id":"para_511"},{"text":"they pay these amounts. But, at least for the Total Indebtedness, the Amended Agreement itself","paragraph_id":"para_512"},{"text":"commingles these concepts. It makes the Companies liable to pay $200,000 per month “until”","paragraph_id":"para_513"},{"text":"No. 25-6096 Lexon Ins. Co. v. Justice Page 18","paragraph_id":"para_514"},{"text":"they extinguish the Total Indebtedness. J.A. 151. And it increases that indebtedness for all","paragraph_id":"para_515"},{"text":"premiums that “become due during” its “term” if the Companies do not pay them within 60 days.","paragraph_id":"para_516"},{"text":"Id. at 152–53. The contract thus tied the Companies’ liability to the contract’s duration.","paragraph_id":"para_517"},{"text":"At day’s end, we may not consider whether it was “wise or unwise, reasonable or","paragraph_id":"para_518"},{"text":"unreasonable, usual or unusual” for the Companies to sign the Amended Agreement or for","paragraph_id":"para_519"},{"text":"Senator Justice to sign the guaranty. Cotiga Dev. Co. v. United Fuel Gas Co., 128 S.E.2d 626,","paragraph_id":"para_520"},{"text":"633 (W. Va. 1962). Rather, we must interpret those contracts as written. See id. So the district","paragraph_id":"para_521"},{"text":"court correctly followed the contracts’ language where it leads: Justice must pay all of the","paragraph_id":"para_522"},{"text":"Companies’ Total Indebtedness.","paragraph_id":"para_523"},{"text":"We affirm.","paragraph_id":"para_524"}],"word_count":6719,"cites":["574 U.S. 427","166 F.4th 556","142 F.4th\n393","694 F.3d 741","238 F.3d 792","813 F.3d 265","280 F.2d 197"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"45667828e5ec1979f224f046787efc27968b571e472b44a2f4a10b086423412c","source_url":"http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0281p-06.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-20T03:52:43.22+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca6-25-6096-2026-10-09","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-6096-2026-10-09","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-6096-2026-10-09","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca6-25-6096-2026-10-09","neighbors":[{"id":"us:ca6-25-5976-2026-10-19","name":"United States v. Reina Chirinos de Urena","decided":"2026-10-19","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-5976-2026-10-19","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-5976-2026-10-19","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-5976-2026-10-19"},{"id":"us:ca6-26-5836-2026-10-16","name":"Appalachian Voices v. TVA","decided":"2026-10-16","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-26-5836-2026-10-16","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-26-5836-2026-10-16","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-26-5836-2026-10-16"},{"id":"us:ca6-25-3775-2026-10-16","name":"United States v. Antoine Cook","decided":"2026-10-16","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-3775-2026-10-16","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-3775-2026-10-16","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-3775-2026-10-16"},{"id":"us:ca6-25-1608-2026-10-15","name":"Paula Bailey v. Mich. Dep't of Corr.","decided":"2026-10-15","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-1608-2026-10-15","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-1608-2026-10-15","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-1608-2026-10-15"},{"id":"us:ca6-26-3891-2026-10-09","name":"Ifeoma Ada Chinweoke Ojukwu v. Todd Lyons","decided":"2026-10-09","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-26-3891-2026-10-09","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-26-3891-2026-10-09","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-26-3891-2026-10-09"},{"id":"us:ca6-25-1140-2026-10-09","name":"Kushawn Miles-El v. State of Michigan","decided":"2026-10-09","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-1140-2026-10-09","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-1140-2026-10-09","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-1140-2026-10-09"},{"id":"us:ca6-25-5830-2026-10-08","name":"Jennifer Byrum v. Knox County, Tenn.","decided":"2026-10-08","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-5830-2026-10-08","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-5830-2026-10-08","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-5830-2026-10-08"},{"id":"us:ca6-25-5443-2026-10-08","name":"United States v. Charles Mixon","decided":"2026-10-08","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-5443-2026-10-08","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-5443-2026-10-08","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-5443-2026-10-08"},{"id":"us:ca6-24-3841-2026-10-07","name":"United States v. Nathan Goddard","decided":"2026-10-07","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-24-3841-2026-10-07","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-24-3841-2026-10-07","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-24-3841-2026-10-07"},{"id":"us:ca6-25-3300-2026-10-01","name":"William Fambrough v. City of E. Cleveland, Ohio","decided":"2026-10-01","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-3300-2026-10-01","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-3300-2026-10-01","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-3300-2026-10-01"}],"verification":{"stored_sha256":"45667828e5ec1979f224f046787efc27968b571e472b44a2f4a10b086423412c","recomputed_sha256":"45667828e5ec1979f224f046787efc27968b571e472b44a2f4a10b086423412c","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-20T19:17:51.977Z"}},"hash":"sha256:ca635542091d215e592a56e4ffabfbaf43664fabb49ac5b0f486894ff20ce128","version":"legal-2026-10-20","expires":"2026-10-21T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-20+legal-2026-10-20+2026-10-20T18:59:35","content_hash":"sha256:ca635542091d215e592a56e4ffabfbaf43664fabb49ac5b0f486894ff20ce128","revalidate_after":"2026-10-20T20:17:52.531Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-6096-2026-10-09","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-6096-2026-10-09"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-6096-2026-10-09"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca6-25-6096-2026-10-09"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ca6-25-6096-2026-10-09","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-b8493a9516c7677b1d4c1886d43f8e21","response_hash":"sha256:ca635542091d215e592a56e4ffabfbaf43664fabb49ac5b0f486894ff20ce128"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T15:24:49.066Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aca6-25-6096-2026-10-09&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":29192}}