Hickenbottom v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 September 1987 |
| Citation | 514 So.2d 881 |
| Parties | 107 Lab.Cas. P 55,828, 2 IER Cases 855 Theodore HICKENBOTTOM v. PREFERRED RISK MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., et al. 85-1468. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Theodore Hickenbottom, pro se.
Vaughan Drinkard, Jr., of Drinkard & Sherling, Mobile, and William C. Martucci of Spencer, Fane, Britt & Browne, Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company, Inc., Preferred Risk Life Insurance Company, Inc., Henry C. Capps, David McCafferty, and Jim McCafferty. The plaintiff, Theodore Hickenbottom, brought a breach of employment contract suit against the defendants. The trial court granted summary judgment on the basis that no enforceable contract of employment existed. We affirm.
On May 21, 1984, in response to a newspaper advertisement, Hickenbottom contacted Preferred Risk's Mobile office to inquire about employment as a sales agent. After the interview, Hickenbottom was offered an opportunity to become associated with the company. He signed a pre-contract statement of understanding, which is as follows:
I hereby volunteer to enter into a pre-employment program with the Preferred Risk Insurance Companies for the sole purpose of determining my interest in a career of insurance selling.
I understand that I am not employed by the Preferred Risk Companies, and I understand and agree that I will not solicit business until qualified by the State Insurance Department. I also understand and agree that there will be no commission or compensation paid on business developed by me while in this program.
Although I may apply for a license, Preferred Risk is under no obligation to offer me a position, and I am under no obligation to apply for or accept a position with Preferred Risk.
Signed: Theodore Hickenbottom/s/
Witnessed: Jim McCafferty/s/
During this training period, Hickenbottom felt that Preferred Risk's agents in Mobile were uncooperative. He wrote a letter to the company's corporate offices in Des Moines, Iowa. As a result of his correspondence Preferred's regional manager set forth the precise conditions of Hickenbottom's training program. On August 30, 1984, Hickenbottom signed another pre-contract statement of understanding, which was identical to the first one. Hickenbottom stated that he knew he was not hired for any definite duration. On January 24, 1985, Preferred Risk notified Hickenbottom that he would not be offered employment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shirley v. Lin
...it is considered terminable at will and may be terminated by either party for any cause or for no cause. Hickenbottom v. Preferred Risk Mutual Ins. Co., 514 So.2d 881, 882 (Ala.1987); Selby v. Quartrol Corp., 514 So.2d 1294, 1295 (Ala.1987); Smith v. Reynolds Metals Co., 497 So.2d 93, 95 (A......
-
Aldridge v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
...no specifics regarding term, length, or duration of employment is an employment-at-will contract. Hickenbottom v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co., 514 So.2d 881, 882 (Ala.1987); Bates v. Jim Walter Res., Inc., 418 So.2d 903, 905 (Ala.1982). "[E]mployment contracts without a fixed term of emplo......
-
Hughes v. Lamar Adver. Co.
...written or oral, is terminable by either the employee or the employer for any cause or no cause at all. Hickenbottom v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co. , 514 So. 2d 881, 882 (Ala. 1987).Here, the parties agree that Mr. Hughes was an at-will employee (Doc. 9 at 8–9.) The parties also appear to ......
-
Aldridge v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 1981622
...no specifics regarding term, length, or duration of employment is an employment-at-will contract. Hickenbottom v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co., 514 So. 2d 881, 882 (Ala. 1987); Bates v. Jim Walter Res., Inc., 418 So. 2d 903, 905 (Ala. 1982). "[E]mployment contracts without a fixed term of e......