Kuhbier v. McCartney, Verrino & Rosenberry Vested Producer Plan
Decision Date | 08 March 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 14–CV–888 (KMK),14–CV–888 (KMK) |
Citation | 239 F.Supp.3d 710 |
Parties | Andreas KUHBIER, Plaintiff, v. MCCARTNEY, VERRINO & ROSENBERRY VESTED PRODUCER PLAN; McCartney, Verrino & Rosenberry Vested Producer Plan Administrator; McCartney, Verrino & Rosenberry Insurance Agency; McCartney & Rosenberry Group, Inc., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Elizabeth E. Hunter, Esq., William D. Frumkin, Esq., Frumkin & Hunter LLP, Goshen, NY, White Plains, NY, Counsel for Plaintiff.
Michael J. Cannon, Esq., Lorin A. Donnelly, Esq., Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP, Woodbury, NY, Counsel for Defendants.
Plaintiff Andreas Kuhbier ("Plaintiff") filed suit against Defendants McCartney, Verrino & Rosenberry Vested Producer Plan; McCartney, Verrino & Rosenberry Vested Producer Plan Administrator; McCartney, Verrino & Rosenberry Insurance Agency; and McCartney & Rosenberry Group, Inc. alleging, among other things, that Defendants breached their obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), with respect to certain amounts owed to him under a qualifying plan, and that Defendants similarly breached their contractual obligations to Plaintiff. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants failed to comply with a document request under ERISA and that Defendants breached other contractual obligations set forth in Plaintiff's employment agreement. Plaintiff moves for partial summary judgment with respect to his claim for unpaid distributions under ERISA, and Defendants cross-move for summary judgment on the same claim as well as for Plaintiff's breach of contract claims. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Motion is granted in part and denied in part, and Defendants' Motion is denied.
The following facts are taken from the Parties' respective statements pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 and the documents submitted by each side in support of their Motions.
Defendant McCartney & Rosenberry Group, Inc. ("McCartney & Rosenberry" or the "Agency") was, at all relevant times, engaged in the insurance agency business. (See Defs.' Statement of Material Facts () ¶ 7 (Dkt. No. 82); Pl.'s Counter–Statement Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 ("Pl.'s Resp. 56.1") ¶ 7 (Dkt. No. 93); see also Decl. of Lorin A. Donnelly ("Donnelly Decl.") Ex. I (Dkt. No. 81).) Verrino & Associates, Inc. ("Verrino & Associates"), a former defendant in this case, was also engaged in the insurance agency business. (See Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 6; Pl.'s Resp. 56.1 ¶ 6; see also Donnelly Decl. Ex. H.)
Plaintiff began working as an independent contractor for Verrino & Associates in May 2005, , and, at the same time, became an independent contractor for McCartney & Rosenberry, () ¶ 3 (Dkt. No. 90); Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 11; . to Pl.'s Statement of Material Facts On May 3, 2005, Plaintiff entered into producer agreements with both Verrino & Associates and McCartney & Rosenberry. Plaintiff's work as a producer consisted of soliciting consumers for insurance and selling insurance.
Plaintiff was paid by commission.
On January 1, 2009, McCartney & Rosenberry acquired the outstanding stock of Verrino & Associates. Later, in February 2009, Plaintiff, now an employee of McCartney & Rosenberry, , entered into a new producer agreement (the "2009 Agreement") with McCartney & Rosenberry that was retroactive to January 2009 and superseded the prior producer agreements, . The 2009 Agreement included three schedules—A, B, and C—when it was signed. Most relevant here, the 2009 Agreement provides that the producer "may participate in [McCartney & Rosenberry's] Vested Producer Plan, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in SCHEDULE B hereto." Schedule B of the 2009 Agreement, entitled "Vested Producer Plan," provides that "[o]n the seventh (7th) anniversary of the Employment Date, Producer shall become eligible to participate in [McCartney & Rosenberry's] Vested Producer Plan as follows." The Vested Producer Plan is set forth as follows:
(2009 Agreement, at Schedule B.) Section 5 of the 2009 Agreement prohibits Plaintiff from disclosing confidential information or using confidential information for his own benefit without the express consent of McCartney & Rosenberry. Section 6 of the 2009 Agreement prohibits Plaintiff for a period of five years from soliciting or attempting to influence any accounts handled by McCartney & Rosenberry, or soliciting or attempting to persuade any other producer or salesperson of McCartney & Rosenberry to work for or represent another insurance broker, insurance agent, or insurance company. Schedule C of the 2009 Agreement provides that with respect to item (d) of the Vested Producer Plan, Plaintiff's first contract date was May 5, 2005.
The 2009 Agreement also addresses the issue of amendment. Specifically, the 2009 Agreement states that "[t]his written Agreement contains the entire Agreement between the parties and shall supersede any and all other agreements between the parties." (2009 Agreement 3; see also Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 61; Defs.' Resp. 56.1 ¶ 61.) The 2009 Agreement goes on to stipulate that "no waiver or modification of this Agreement or any covenant, condition, or limitation herein contained shall be valid unless in writing and duly executed by the parties to be charged therewith." (2009 Agreement 3; see also Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 62; Defs.' Resp. 56.1 ¶ 62.)
Beyond the Vested Producer Plan, the 2009 Agreement includes a number of other relevant provisions. Among other things, the 2009 Agreement provides that the producer (Plaintiff) was "an at-will employee whose employment with [McCartney & Rosenberry] shall be terminable by either party at any time and for any reason, subject to applicable law." The 2009 Agreement stipulates also that "[McCartney & Rosenberry] shall reimburse Producer for reasonable and necessary business expenses in accordance with SCHEDULE A." The 2009 Agreement offers, separate from the Vested Producer Plan, participation in a "[s]imple IRA" whereby a producer may contribute his or her own pre-tax income to the retirement plan and McCartney & Rosenberry will contribute up to $6,000. Finally, paragraph 10 of Schedule A to the 2009 Agreement provides that the producer is ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Demopoulos v. Dr. Sameh H. Aknouk Dental Servs
...ordinarily will not be construed as a condition precedent absent clear language showing that the parties intended to make it a condition.” Id.; see also Marine & Aviation Ins. (UK) Ltd. v. Seajet Indus. Inc., 84 F.3d 622, 625 (2d Cir. 1996) (same); Sciascia v. Rochdale Vill., Inc., 851 F.Su......
-
360 Mortg. Grp. v. Fortress Inv. Grp.
... ... contracts. Kuhbier ... contracts. Kuhbier v. McCartney ... contracts. Kuhbier v. McCartney, Verrino ... Kuhbier v. McCartney, Verrino & Rosenberry ... McCartney, Verrino & Rosenberry ... Vested ... Vested Producer ... Vested Producer Plan ... ...
-
Advanced Water Techs. Inc. v. Amiad U.S.A., Inc.
...determination whether a material breach has occurred is generally a question of fact." Kuhbier v. McCartney, Verrino & Rosenberry Vested Producer Plan, 239 F. Supp. 3d 710, 735 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (quoting 23 Williston on Contracts § 63:3 (4th ed.)) (citing Merrill Lynch & Co. v. Allegheny Ener......