Schlemer v. Connell Agencies of Kimberling City, Inc., s. 15031
| Decision Date | 18 December 1987 |
| Docket Number | 15039,Nos. 15031,s. 15031 |
| Citation | 741 S.W.2d 307 |
| Parties | Mel SCHLEMER, Appellant-Respondent, v. CONNELL AGENCIES OF KIMBERLING CITY, INC., A Corporation, Respondent-Appellant. (Consolidated). |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Anderson, Anderson & Selby, Kimberling City, for appellant-respondent.
Robert S. Wiley, Crane, for respondent-appellant.
Mel Schlemer sued Connell Agencies of Kimberling City, Inc. (Connell) for damages for breach of contract. Following jury trial a verdict was rendered in favor of Schlemer for $45,000. Pursuant to Connell's motion for new trial the trial court found instructional error and granted a new trial. Schlemer appeals from that order and Connell appeals from the court's order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The appeals were consolidated.
Schlemer sold life and health insurance through Connell, an insurance agency, pursuant to a written agreement. After the contract was terminated Schlemer contended that Connell did not properly pay him commissions for renewals of insurance policies that he had sold for Connell under the contract. The principal issue at trial was the effect of the paragraph 8 of their agreement. It states:
8. In case of termination of this contract for any reason, Second party shall be entitled to all deferred first year commissions less indebtedness and all vested renewals of Second party's commissions less 1% of premium for servicing business.
Schlemer testified that he and Connell's president had agreed as to what was meant by "vested renewals of Second party's commissions". Connell presented "expert" testimony as to what "vested renewals" meant in the insurance industry. Schlemer's claim was submitted by an instruction following MAI 26.06. This was found by the trial court to be prejudicially erroneous as it did not require the jury to find the meaning of "vested renewals". The instruction stated:
Your verdict must be for plaintiff if you believe:
First, plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement whereby plaintiff agreed to sell life and health insurance for defendant and defendant agreed to compensate plaintiff by paying plaintiff first year and vested renewal commissions on life and health insurance sold for defendant by plaintiff, upon terms and in amounts agreed by the parties, and
Second, plaintiff performed his agreement, and
Third, defendant failed to perform its agreement, and
Fourth, plaintiff was thereby damaged.
There was a dispute as to what the agreement meant by "vested renewals" but the jury was not required to make any finding in that regard. Where the terms of an agreement are in dispute the verdict directing instruction must hypothesize the proponent's version of that agreement. Reed Stenhouse, Inc. of Missouri v. Portnoy, 642 S.W.2d 947, 951 (Mo.App.1982). See also Shearin v. Fletcher/Mayo/Associates, Inc., 647 S.W.2d 127, 130 (Mo.App.1982); Braun v. Lorenz, 585 S.W.2d 102, 107 (Mo.App.1979).
Schlemer's recovery was predicated upon a finding that his interpretation of the contract was correct. As the jury was not required to make that determination the instruction was prejudicially erroneous. The trial court correctly granted a new trial.
Connell filed motions asking for a new trial and also for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The trial court sustained the motion for a new trial and denied the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In its appeal Connell contends that the trial court erred in failing to sustain its motion for directed verdict and in overruling its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Substantial authority states that because Connell was granted its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Penberthy v. Nancy Transp., Inc., No. 58443
...that issue must be hypothesized in the verdict directing instruction." Braun, supra, 585 S.W.2d at 107; Schlemer v. Connell Agencies, 741 S.W.2d 307, 308 (Mo.App.1987). Failure to do so is prejudicial error. Portnoy, supra, 642 S.W.2d at 951; Schlemer, supra, 741 S.W.2d at As we have previo......
-
McMillan v. First State Bank of Joplin, s. 20463
...the proponent's version of the agreement. Penberthy v. Nancy Transp., Inc., 804 S.W.2d at 407; Schlemer v. Connell Agencies of Kimberling City, Inc., 741 S.W.2d 307, 308 (Mo.App.S.D.1987). In the instant case, however, Plaintiff's claim was based on her contract with the Bank as evidenced b......
-
Graham v. Goodman, No. 75159
...26.06. The verdict directing instruction must hypothesize the proponent's version of the agreement. Schlemer v. Connell Agencies of Kimberling City, Inc., 741 S.W.2d 307, 308 (Mo.App.1987). It is more likely that what the court of appeals intended in Wieners was to suggest that if a plainti......
-
Steele v. Evenflo Co., Inc.
...case law, they were not "aggrieved" by the judgment granting their motion for new trial. See Schlemer v. Connell Agencies of Kimberling City, Inc., 741 S.W.2d 307, 309 (Mo.App.1987). ...