Doyle v. Kelly

• Decision Date: 13 November 1990
• Docket Number: No. 69063,69063
• Parties: Marvin A. DOYLE, Appellee, v. Edward L. KELLY and Anmac Corporation, Defendants, Academy Life Insurance Company, a foreign insurance corporation, Appellant.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 717

801 P.2d 717

1990 OK 119

Marvin A. DOYLE, Appellee, v. Edward L. KELLY and Anmac Corporation, Defendants,

Academy Life Insurance Company, a foreign insurance

corporation, Appellant.

No. 69063.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Nov. 13, 1990.

Taylor C. Stein, Lawton, for appellee.

W.D. Greenwood, Huckaby, Fleming, Frailey, Chaffin & Darrah, Oklahoma City, for appellant.

ALMA WILSON, Justice:

This action was brought by the appellee, Marvin A. Doyle, against Academy Life Insurance Company, the appellant, and against Edward L. Kelly and ANMAC Corporation, defendants. Mr. Doyle was both an agent and general agent for Academy. As general agent he was responsible for recruiting, supervising and training other agents. He brought this suit and by trial the issues had been narrowed to breach of contract, wrongful termination of contract, and wrongful interference with employment. The jury returned a general verdict for the plaintiff and against the defendants awarding actual damages of $31,040.86. According to a special verdict, the award did not include any damages for tortious interference with contract by the defendants Kelly or ANMAC. The special verdict was not appealed and therefore Kelly and ANMAC are not a part of this appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. ¹ We previously granted certiorari.

The appellant argues that the jury verdict is unsupported by the evidence. The parties agree that the law which is applicable to this case is found in Hall v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 713 P.2d 1027 (Okla.1985). Hall, which also involved an agency contract, is factually similar to the case at bar.

Hall established the rule in this state that "a principal may not unfairly deprive his agent of the fruits of that agent's own labor by a wrongful, unwarranted resort to a clause in the agency contract which provides for termination at will." Hall, 713 P.2d at 1031. The case held that Farmers had wrongfully invoked its right to terminate Hall's agency and did so for the unconscionable purpose of depriving Hall of the future payments of renewal premiums as a penalty for his having voiced his objections to controversial company actions. Hall, 713 P.2d at 1031. This Court reasoned that Farmers had breached the implied covenant of good faith which exists in all contracts. The measure of the damages for the breach of contract was "the predictable, quantifiable amount of future income which [Hall] was entitled to receive as renewal premiums on insurance policies he had sold as a Farmers agent, both before and after he received notice of the wrongful termination." Hall, 713 P.2d at 1031.

Where an appellant claims that the evidence presented at trial does not support the verdict, this Court has a long-standing rule:

[W]here there is any competent evidence or reasonable inference from circumstances reasonably tending to establish a cause of action or to sustain the jury's verdict and judgment based thereon, such judgment will be sustained on appeal unless shown to be contrary to law.

Silk v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 760 P.2d 174, 176 (Okla.1988). The issue is whether there is any competent evidence or reasonable inference from the facts in the case at bar which tends to sustain the jury verdict and judgment in this cause. The Hall case established the rule that every contract carries an implicit and mutual covenant by the parties to act toward each other in good faith. Hall, 713 P.2d at 1029. The appellee presented substantial evidence that Academy had not acted in good faith. The parties had contracted for Doyle to be an independent agent, who according to the contract was not an employee and was to be free to exercise his own judgment as to the time and manner of managing the agents within his agency. The contract explicitly states that the general agent's freedom of business will not be subject to interference:

RELATIONSHIP. The General Agent shall be free to exercise his own judgment as to the time and manner of performing the services authorized by this Agreement subject to such rules and regulations as may be adopted from time to time respecting the conduct of business but not interfering with the freedom of business and not interfering with the freedom of action of the General Agent. At all times the General Agent shall be deemed an independent contractor, and nothing contained herein shall be construed as creating the relationship of employer and employee between the Company and the General Agent.

Plaintiff's exhibit # 2.

Despite the explicit wording in the contract, the plaintiff, Doyle, presented evidence that from the time Kelly and ANMAC became involved as managing general agent they interfered with his method of doing business. This interference occurred even though Doyle's agency was producing better than any of the other agencies under Kelly's managing general agency.

There is evidence to show that Doyle was doing a good job for Academy prior to the change in managing general agents, and was doing a top job as general agent for Academy except for his objections to interference by Kelly and ANMAC contrary to the contract he had with Academy. Doyle presented evidence that Kelly and ANMAC had done nothing beneficial for his agency as far as providing any innovative marketing and managing techniques as Doyle had been promised, that Kelly's visits to Doyle's Lawton agency had merely interrupted the agency with classes which were redundant to those offered by Doyle, and that Kelly was attempting to run Doyle's business for him. The record clearly shows that Doyle considered Kelly and ANMAC to be intruders who intended and succeeded in taking over his agency as evidenced by the fact that the next general agent who took over Doyle's agency came from Colorado Springs, where ANMAC's offices were located, and had worked for ANMAC.

The jury chose to believe the evidence presented by the plaintiff, Doyle, and inferred from that evidence that Academy, through the actions of their agents had breached its agreement with Doyle. "A court may not substitute its judgment for that of the jury in the exercise of its function as a fact finding body." Dodson v. Henderson Properties, Inc., 708 P.2d 1064, 1068 (Okla.1985). Because there is competent evidence to support their verdict and the judgment, this Court will not disturb the judgment.

As a second issue, the appellant urges that the trial court erred in admitting Plaint...