Sizer v. New England Life Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 09 May 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 3:10–cv–00553–PK.,3:10–cv–00553–PK. |
Citation | 871 F.Supp.2d 1071 |
Parties | William SIZER, Samuel McCormick and Shawna Davis, Plaintiffs, v. NEW ENGLAND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., a Delaware corporation, and Michelle Warnes, an individual, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Mark J. Morrell, Mark Morrell, Trial Lawyer, Portland, OR, for Plaintiffs.
David J. Riewald, Bullard Smith Jernstedt Wilson, Portland, OR, Martin Harris, Harris & Affiliates, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Defendants.
Plaintiffs William Sizer, Shawna Davis, and Samuel McCormick filed this action in state court against New England Life Insurance Company (“New England”), Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (“Metlife”), New England's parent company, and Michelle Warnes, managing partner of New England's local branch office, arising out of their recruitment to become independent contractor insurance agents with New England. Sizer and Davis have reported settling their claims with defendants, leaving only McCormick's claims in dispute. (# 70.) McCormick alleges claims for breach of contract and fraud relating to defendants' alleged failure to promote him as promised to a Specialist position and for intentional interference with economic relations relating to Warnes' role in preventing him from being rehired at MetLife. Now before the court are defendants' joint motions for partial summary judgment on McCormick's fraud and intentional interference claims (# 48), and defendants' motion in limine concerning damages on McCormick's breach of contract claim (# 58). For the reasons described below defendants' motion for partial summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part and defendants' motion in limine is granted.
In June 2008, Michelle Warnes, the managing partner of New England's local branch, became aware of McCormick through a recruiter. (D.'s Mot., # 48, Warnes Dep., at 144–145). Over the course of a number of meetings, Warnes offered him a position with New England as an insurance agent. (Warnes Dep., at 145.) During their first meeting, on June 13, 2008, Warnes and McCormick talked about the life insurance Specialist position, although Warnes told McCormick that New England did not usually hire an agent as a Specialist until after spending one year with the company.2 (Warnes Dep., at 146.) A Specialist is a job that requires collaborating with management to support the firm's business in a particular area and assisting other agents in selling particular types of insurance. (D.'s Motion, # 48, Ex: 13) (job description). Although there are several different types of Specialists, McCormick was interested in the “Advanced Sales Specialist” position. Id. During their first meeting and subsequent meetings in June 2008, Warnes told McCormick he was “ideal” for that role based on his previous experience with high net-worth individuals and indicated that McCormick was “kind of locked up” for the position. (McCormick Dep., at 120, 136.) McCormick perceived he and Warnes had reached an agreement on the Specialist position. (McCormick Dep., at 108.) Based on conversations with Warnes, McCormick believed the Specialist position was to start in January 2009 and would come with a $1,500 per month supplemental salary and an 8% bonus on increased life insurance commissions. Id. at 127–128.
In a letter dated July 3, 2008, Warnes offered McCormick a position as an “agent” with New England, but made no mention of the Specialist position. (D.'s Motion, # 48, Ex. 11.) When McCormick brought up the fact that the offer letter did not mention the Specialist position, Warnes told McCormick that “it would be all taken cave of ... in six months” and urged him to trust her. (McCormick Dep., at 108.) On July 14, 2008, after McCormick had already left his prior position and was in the New England office working on due diligence reports, Warnes again presented a copy of the offer letter not mentioning the Specialist position. Id. at 114. McCormick was very upset and insisted on having something in writing assuring him that he would receive the Specialist position, before signing on with New England. (108–109, 114, 121.) In response, Warnes brought McCormick a copy of the job description for the Specialist position and handwrote on the top of the front page “ * to review with Sam January '09 Advanced Market Specialist.” (McCormick Dep., at 119); (D.'s Motion, # 48, Ex. 13.) Warnes also signed and dated the page. Id. McCormick was still not satisfied because the note said “review” and asked Warnes what would guarantee him the Specialist position. Id. at 120. Warnes responded: “At this time, right here, if you win the agent of the year award,” indicating that the position was not guaranteed otherwise.3Id. During that meeting on July 14, McCormick reluctantly agreed to sign the offer letter. Id. at 119.
Several writings described the at-will nature of McCormick's employment. McCormick's offer letter stated that he would be an at-will employee. (D.'s Motion, # 48, Ex. 11) () . McCormick's job application, signed on June 18, 2008, also described his position as that of an at-will independent contractor. (D.'s Motion, # 58, Ex. 6.) Finally, McCormick's GDC agent contract, signed on June 25, 2008, provided that both McCormick and Warnes reserved the right to terminate the contract “at any time at will and without cause upon giving thirty (30) days' notice in writing.” (D.'s Motion, # 58, Ex. 7) (¶ 26(b)).
Despite these references to at-will employment, McCormick testified that Warnes promised if he earned the Specialist position in January 2009, he would be guaranteed that position for all of 2009, and would be reviewed annually thereafter to determine whether he would keep the position. (McCormick Dep., at 143–144.) McCormick also believed that his GDC agent contract stated his agent appointment would last a year as well, although he testified that such contracts in the industry typically last for at least two years. Id. at 144, 147. Finally, McCormick assumed, based on his experience in the industry and the general industry practice, that he would not be terminated so long as he met New England's minimum production requirements, did not have compliance problems, made money for his company, and got along with his coworkers. Id. at 146, 163.
In late November and early December 2008, McCormick was under considerable stress, with his wife giving birth to their first baby and his sister dying within a period of a few days. (D.'s Motion, # 48, Ex. 200); (McCormick Dep., at 213–214.) In addition, McCormick was competing to be the top producer for the year. (McCormick Dep., at 202.) Over the next several weeks, McCormick had several strained interactions with various New England and MetLife staff, the details of which are disputed.4
On December 12, 2008, McCormick confronted Rhoda Laws, a clerk in the New England office, for not overnighting a check to a client as he requested. (McCormick Decl., ¶ 3); (McCormick Dep., at 59.) McCormick was “very assertive” when talking to Laws, speaking firmly without yelling, and eventually resorted to having assistant manager Jon Lawry explain the urgency of the situation to Laws. (McCormick Dep., at 60, 200–201.) Laws complained about McCormick to Warnes that same day and later sent an email to Warnes describing how McCormick raised his voice and got angry at her. (Warnes Dep., at 180); (D.'s Motion, # 48, Ex. 201.)
Around December 19, 2008, McCormick clashed with Mary Torello, an underwriter at MetLife, who refused to approve a very large life insurance policy for a male client who had a mass in his chest until she received results from a mammogram required by the client's doctor. (McCormick Dep., at 205–208.) McCormick thought Torello's instance on seeing mammogram results for a man was “ridiculous.” (McCormick Dep., at 211.) McCormick emailed Torello complaining that she “completely wasted ... my time” and “[blew] this very important case;” McCormick insisted Torello provide “no more worthless answers” and accused Torello of messing up his new newborn baby's Christmas. (D.'s Motion, # 48, Ex. 20, at 4–5.) Torello's manager complained to Warnes about McCormick, but Warnes did not reprimand McCormick and instead upgraded him to a higher level of underwriter service. (D.'s Motion, # 48, Ex. 202) (McCormick Dep., at 203.) Around the same time, Warnes and assistant manager Lawry indicated that McCormick looked angry in the office, often snarling, glaring, or sighing loudly in frustration, which made them concerned that McCormick would take his anger “to the next level.” (Warnes Decl., ¶¶ 6–7); (Lawry Dep., at 21, 58, 59–63.)
Sometime in the first several weeks of December—it is unclear exactly whether before or after McCormick's incident with Laws—Warnes told McCormick that she intended to review him for the Specialist position a year after he joined New England, not in January 2009 as she originally stated. (McCormick Dep., at 165–167.)
Throughout this period of McCormick's strained interactions, Warnes never raised any concerns about McCormick's behavior with him directly. (Warnes Dep., at 195.) Warnes also never told McCormick he needed to be more sensitive to co-workers. (McCormick Dep., at 214–215.) On December 23, 2008, she sent McCormick an email using a friendly tone saying she was happy to have him as part of her team in 2009. (P.'s Resp., # 54, Ex. 311.) Several times in December, however, Warnes states that she called Patti McClung, the MetLife HR contact assigned to support New England, reporting her concerns about feeling threatened by McCormick.5 (Warnes Dep., at 194–195.) Warnes also spoke with McClung...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lair v. Murry
... ... Partnership, American Tradition Partnership PAC, Montana Right to Life Association PAC, Sweet Grass Council for Community Integrity, Lake County ... McCollough v. Minn. Laws. Mut. Ins. Co., 2010 WL 441533 at *4 (collecting Ninth Circuit cases). The balance ... ...
-
Or. JV v. Advance Inv. Corp.
... ... See Harris Rutsky & Co ... Ins. Servs. v. Bell & Clements Ltd ., 328 F.3d 1122, ... 1129 (9th Cir ... Holdings , 2020 WL 4506778, at *3; see Sizer v. New ... England Life Ins. Co. , 871 F.Supp.2d 1071, 1079 (D. Or ... ...
-
Rentokil Initial (1896) Ltd. v. Jeld-Wen, Inc.
...contracting parties against interference in their contracts from outside parties." Jeld-Wen also points to Sizer v. New England Life Ins., 871 F.Supp.2d 1071, 1083 (D. Or. 2012), where Judge Papak of this court granted a summary judgment motion on the basis that a subsidiary could not be a ......
-
Metropolis Holdings, LLC v. SP Plus Corp.
...that SP Plus later did not perform does not create an inference that it never intended to perform. See Sizer v. New England Life Ins. Co., 871 F. Supp. 2d 1071, 1079 (D. Or. 2012) ("To establish a defendant's fraudulent intent regarding a promise to act in the future, a plaintiff must do mo......