Roberts v. Overby-Seawell Co., Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-1217-L
Decision Date | 23 March 2018 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-1217-L |
Parties | DAVID ROBERTS, Plaintiff, v. OVERBY-SEAWELL COMPANY, BRECKENRIDGE INSURANCE GROUP, INC., and BRECKENRIDGE IS, INC., Defendants. |
Court | United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Northern District of Texas |
Before the court are: Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 74), filed June 16, 2017; Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 80), filed June 16, 2017; Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Testimony and Report of J. Daniel Caskey, Mark A. Gannaway, and Janice Williams (Doc. 71), filed June 16, 2017; Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Expert (Doc. 76), filed June 16, 2017; and Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Untimely Expert Declarations (Doc. 104), filed July 21, 2017. Having considered the motions, legal briefing, appendixes, evidence, record, and applicable law, the court grants in part and denies in part Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 74); grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 80); denies Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Testimony and Report of J. Daniel Caskey, Mark A. Gannaway, and Janice Williams (Doc. 71); grants Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Expert (Doc. 76); and denies Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Untimely Expert Declarations (Doc. 104).
This action arises from a dispute between an insurance salesman, Plaintiff David Roberts ("Roberts"), and his former employer, Defendant Overby-Seawell Company ("OSC"), a subsidiary of Defendant Breckenridge IS, Inc. ("Breckenridge IS"). Roberts contends that OSC failed to pay him contingent commissions to which he was entitled under the parties' agreement, and reduced his commission checks by $35,000 per month over a period of ten months without his authorization. Defendants contend that Roberts was not owed contingent commissions, and that contingent commissions cannot even be calculated for an individual salesperson. Alternatively, Defendants contend that Roberts waived any right to seek contingent commissions by failing to assert his entitlement to them during his employment at OSC. With regard to the $35,000 deducted each month from Roberts's commission check, Defendants assert that Roberts agreed to this deduction.
On March 24, 2015, Roberts filed Plaintiff's Original Petition in the 160th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, against OSC, as well as Breckenridge Insurance Group, Inc. ("Breckenridge Group"), which acquired OSC in 2010. On April 22, 2015, Defendants OSC and Breckenridge Group removed this action to the district court for the Northern District of Texas on grounds that complete diversity of citizenship exists between the parties and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
On May 12, 2015, Roberts amended his pleadings, and on September 23, 2015, after the court granted him leave, he filed Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint ("Complaint") (Doc. 19), the operative pleading in this case, adding Breckenridge IS as a party. Roberts is suing Defendants for: (1) breach of contract; (2) promissory estoppel; and (3) quantum meruit, and he also seeks declaratory relief with respect to the rights and obligations of the parties. Roberts seeks actualdamages, attorney's fees, and costs. Disagreeing about the specifics of Roberts's commission agreement and contending that Roberts breached a confidentiality agreement, Defendants OSC and Breckenridge IS (sometimes collectively "Defendants") offer a number of affirmative defenses and assert counterclaims against Roberts for: (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) fraud by nondisclosure; (3) misappropriation of trade secrets; and (4) breach of contract. See Defs.' Ans. to Pl.'s Sec. Am. Compl. and Overby-Seawall Company and Breckenridge IS's Counterclaims against Pl. (Doc. 20).1 Defendants seek actual damages, exemplary damages, costs, and attorney's fees. The court now sets forth the facts in accordance with the standard in Section II(A) of this opinion.2
OSC is a Managing General Agency (MGA) in the business of selling lender or "force placed" insurance to its clients (including banks and mortgage servicing companies) and placing those policies with various insurance companies. "Force placed" insurance coverage is insurance placed on collateral by a lender seeking to protect its interests when the borrower fails to maintain the required insurance coverage on the collateral. In 2010, Breckenridge Group acquired OSC. Breckenridge IS is the "parent company" with whom OSC and Breckenridge Group are affiliated.
As part of the revenue received from certain carriers with whom OSC places business, OSC may be entitled to contingent commissions from insurance carriers. Contingent commissions, also known as profit commissions, are based on the overall profitability of the accounts that OSC places with each insurance carrier. The insurance carrier evaluates the overall profitability of the book of business that OSC placed with it and performs this analysis based on a three-year period. Even if a contingent commission is paid to OSC in one year, it is possible that if the contingents are negative for the following year that OSC could be required to repay money to the carrier or that the negative amounts are carried forward year after year.
Mark Pearce, Head of the Underwriting Department for OSC, explained the commission structure as follows:
Pl.'s Summ. J. App. 218-219 (Doc. 82). Eugene Norton ("Norton"), OSC's Vice-President of Accounting, who was designated by Defendants as the corporate representative to speak on the structure and calculation of contingent payments, described a contingent commission as something that is "calculated contingent on the profitability of a business, of a book of business that's paid to the - someone like us[,] [a] general agent from the carrier" Id. at 176. Norton also stated at his deposition that contingent commissions are revenue:
Id. at 176. Keith Gilroy ("Gilroy"), OSC's President, similarly stated at his deposition that contingent commissions are "an additional type of revenue." Id. at 81.
Roberts has worked in the insurance industry for twenty years. His primary focus is on "force placed" insurance and large accounts in the mortgage servicing space. On May 3, 2011, OSC hired Roberts as a sales executive. The offer letter states that Roberts's salary "will be $3,653.85 per bi-weekly pay period, plus commission, paid bi-weekly." Defs.' Summ. J. Resp. App. 1.
At the inception of his employment, Roberts signed a Confidentiality Agreement that stated in part:
Id. at 2 (Confidentiality Agreement).
Roberts brought in approximately $1,000,000 in premiums his first year. In January of 2012, Roberts signed OSC's largest account—Shellpoint Loan Servicing ("Shellpoint"), formerly named Resurgent. Shellpoint accounted for $9,000,000 in premiums in 2012 and grew to an annual premium exceeding $20,000,000.
In 2011, OSC's commission agreement provided that Roberts would receive 20% commission on "OSC Net Revenue" for the first year of a new account. Pl.'s Summ. J. App. 11 (2011 Commission Agreement) (Doc. 82). After one year, the commission changed to the renewal rate, which was 10% of "OSC Net Revenue." Id. The 2011 Commission Agreement did not define the terms "commission" or "OSC Net Revenue."
In February 2013, the Shellpoint account was in its thirteenth month. Under the 2011 Commission Agreement, therefore, Roberts's commission on that account lowered from 20% to the renewal rate of 10%. In the fall of 2013, Roberts noticed the reduction in his commission and questioned John Dangoia ("Dangoia"), then-president of OSC, and James Robertson ("R...
To continue reading
Request your trial