Dennis v. Watson

• Decision Date: 20 November 1953
• Citation: 264 S.W.2d 858
• Parties: DENNIS et al. v. WATSON.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

Page 858

264 S.W.2d 858

DENNIS et al. v. WATSON.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 20, 1953.

Rehearing Denied March 12, 1954.

Ogden, Galphin & Abell, Squire R. Ogden, Charles A. Robertson, Louisville, for appellants.

Tilford & Wetherby, Howard B. Hunt, Louisville, for appellee.

John J. Magovern, Jr., Newark, N. J., Leo T. Wolford, B. Hudson Milner, Middleton, Seelbach, Wolford, Willis & Cochran, Louisville, amicus curiae.

WADDILL, Commissioner.

This suit stems from a dispute as to the terms of a parol agreement entered into by the parties to this action in 1943. As a consequence the issue before us is whether or not appellee is entitled to recover from appellants one-half of the soliciting agent's commissions on life insurance policies, technically termed 'increases' and 'additions', issued in connection with certain pension plans. The Chancellor found that the agreement included the commissions in controversy and entered a decree directing appellants to account to appellee for one-half of them. This appeal follows.

A statement of the events leading to this controversy is in order. For some time, the appellants, Dennis and Brown, have been business partners and the general agents of the Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company in the vicinity of Louisville. Prior to July, 1943, they had attempted to enter the field of selling pension trust plans supported by life insurance to Louisville business concerns employing large numbers of persons. Appellants soon learned that they needed the advice and help of an insurance specialist to assist them in formulating and selling this type of insurance.

At an insurance meeting which appellant Brown attended in Chicago in July, 1943, Brown was informed that Mutual Benefit was unable to furnish them with assistance in selling pension plan insurance. However, Brown did meet Watson, who was an insurance specialist, and as a result of a conversation between them, Watson came to Louisville and in the course of about a year, was able to formulate and sell, with appellants' assistance, eight pension plans funded by life insurance. Brown testified that Watson was an excellent salesman and was eminently qualified for this technical work.

The agreement as to how commissions would be divided between appellee and appellants was not reduced to writing. On this point Watson testified as follows:

'I told him [Brown] that I would [come], and that the arrangement would be that I was to receive one-half of all of the commissions that came from the work and the commissions that were received and that were to come from all of the cases that we solicited and closed.'

During interrogation Watson was asked:

'Now during that period, beginning from the date that you made this arrangement or contract, was the question of how those commissions were to be figured, your remuneration or your share in it, what it was to be calculated on and what it was to embrace as to additions and increases?'

To which he answered:

'There was no discussion of that because the original agreement that was made with Mr. Brown in Chicago clearly stated by me that I was to receive half of the commissions which were to be paid on any cases that we secured all of the way through and he agreed to that.'

Brown denied that any such statements were made, and testified:

'The agreement was that Mr. Watson would come down on the First National Bank case and that we were to share 50-50 in commissions and expenses.'

Watson was paid one-half of the soliciting agent's commission on insurance policies originally sold in connection with all pension plans except one, and in this instance, by agreement, Watson accepted...