Birnstill v. Home Sav. of America, 89-1873
| Decision Date | 02 July 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-1873,89-1873 |
| Citation | 907 F.2d 795 |
| Parties | 118 Lab.Cas. P 56,557 Robert J. BIRNSTILL and Rosalie A. Birnstill, Appellants, v. HOME SAVINGS OF AMERICA, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Clinton B. Roberts, Farmington, Mo., for appellants.
Harry W. Wellford, Jr., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Before JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge, and BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge, and MAGILL, Circuit Judge.
Robert and Rosalie Birnstill appeal from the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Home Savings of America (Home) in their action for breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress and tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. They contend the district court 1 improperly applied choice of law principles to conclude that Missouri law applied to this case and erroneously dismissed the action under Missouri law. According to the Birnstills, the district court erred in failing to apply California law to the transaction, which law would sustain the claim. We reject the contention and affirm.
We present the relevant facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, as is required in reviewing the granting of a motion for summary judgment. See Raschick v. Prudent Supply, Inc., 830 F.2d 1497, 1499 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 935, 108 S.Ct. 1111, 99 L.Ed.2d 272 (1988); Buller v. Buechler, 706 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir.1983).
On March 1, 1983, Robert Birnstill began working as a conventional loan salesman for Home in St. Louis, Missouri. Birnstill's duties included soliciting and servicing real estate loans. In this capacity, Birnstill became a top salesman and received recognition from Home as the top producer in the number of loans nationwide for two straight years.
In late August 1986, a Home representative in California verbally offered Robert Birnstill a promotion to regional sales manager in Florida. At approximately the same time, Rosalie Birnstill learned she had contracted cancer. Robert Birnstill relayed the news of Rosalie Birnstill's illness to Home representatives and informed them of his desire to remain in the St. Louis area where both Rosalie Birnstill's mother and he could assist with Rosalie's care. Nevertheless, Home encouraged Birnstill to accept the promotion and move with his wife to Florida.
Birnstill accepted the promotion subject to examination of the Florida territory. After traveling to Florida and examining the territory, Robert Birnstill notified the Home representatives in California of his acceptance of the position. Shortly thereafter, Robert Birnstill flew to California for two weeks of training for his new position.
Relying on the promotion opportunity, the Birnstills immediately sold their home in St. Louis and contracted to buy a home in Florida. Rosalie Birnstill's mother also sold her St. Louis home and contracted to buy a Florida condominium. On November 10, three days after finishing his training in California, a Home representative informed Robert Birnstill that another individual would fill the Florida position. Home then offered Robert Birnstill a choice between two jobs: one in Florida requiring extensive travel, which Robert Birnstill deemed unacceptable, or his former job in St. Louis. Seeing no alternative, Robert Birnstill accepted the St. Louis job. He claims that Home subsequently manipulated his sales quota and territory to such an unreasonable extent that he was forced to quit his job in March 1987.
The Birnstills then brought this diversity action, alleging that Home's inducement to move to Florida, Home's withdrawal of Robert Birnstill's promotion after the Birnstills had sold their home and Home's constructive discharge of Robert Birnstill constituted: (a) a breach of contract; (b) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (c) tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Birnstills sought $2,500,000 in actual damages for each count and punitive damages for the second count.
Home moved for summary judgment, claiming that Missouri law barred all three claims under the employee-at-will doctrine. Alternatively, Home contended that the Birnstills' claims were barred under Missouri Workers Compensation law and that federal law preempted any state law cause of action.
The district court determined that Missouri law applied to all three counts and concluded that under the Missouri employee-at-will doctrine, no cause of action existed. This timely appeal followed.
The Birnstills contend the district court relied on findings unsupported by the record and failed to resolve conflicts of the evidence in their favor when it concluded that Missouri law applied to this case. Alternatively, the Birnstills contend that if Missouri law does apply, the district court erroneously concluded that no cause of action exists.
In a diversity action in federal court, the district court must follow the choice of law rules of the state in which it sits in order to determine which state's substantive law applies. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 1021-22, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941). Whether the district court properly applied the forum state's choice of law rules is a legal issue subject to plenary review. Shields v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 810 F.2d 397, 400 (3d Cir.1987). Once the choice of law rules have been correctly applied, the reviewing court accords deference to the district court's interpretation of the substantive law of the state in which it sits and the district court's decision will be reversed only if it is "fundamentally deficient in analysis, without a reasonable basis, or contrary to a reported state-court opinion." Economy Fire & Casualty v. Tri-State Ins. Co. of Minn., 827 F.2d 373, 375 (8th Cir.1987).
For both contract and tort actions, Missouri courts apply the significant relationship tests found in the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Law (1971). National...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oceanic Cablevision, Inc. v. MD ELECTRONICS
...which state's substantive law applies. J & B Co. v. Bellanca Aircraft Corp., 911 F.2d 152, 153 (8th Cir.1990); Birnstill v. Home Sav. of America, 907 F.2d 795, 797 (8th Cir.1990). Nebraska appears to follow the approach of Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Laws to determine which state's......
-
Consul General of the Republic of Indonesia v. Bill's Rentals, Inc., Civil No. 3-98-CV-90135 (S.D. Iowa 4/6/2000)
...in the state in which it sits." Dorman v. Emerson Elec. Co., 23 F.3d 1354, 1358 (8th Cir. 1994) (citing Birnstill v. Home Sav. of Am., 907 F.2d 795, 797 (8th Cir. 1990)). In deciding choice of law questions, however, a court must first determine the nature of the causes of action, Drinkall ......
-
Ill. Valley Paving Co. And v. Old Repub. Ins. Co.
...v. Jones, 180 F.3d 923, 928 (8th Cir.1999); Whirlpool Corp. v. Ritter, 929 F.2d 1318, 1322 (8th Cir.1991); Birnstill v. Home Sav. of America, 907 F.2d 795, 797 (8th Cir.1990). This Court, sitting in Missouri, must therefore look to Missouri's choice of law rule applicable to contracts. With......
-
Mascarenas v. Miles, Inc.
...diversity action such as this case, a federal court applies the choice of law rules of the state in which it sits. Birnstill v. Home Savings, 907 F.2d 795, 797 (8th Cir.1990). In tort actions Missouri courts apply the most significant relationship test found in the Restatement (Second) of C......