Strahm v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 73--254
| Decision Date | 24 October 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--254,73--254 |
| Citation | 285 So.2d 679 |
| Parties | 72 Lab.Cas. P 14,093 Paul STRAHM, Appellant, v. AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Mark J. Feldman, Miami, for appellant.
Preddy, Haddad, Kutner & Hardy and David Bercuson, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.
Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of a directed verdict for the defendant at the close of his case.
From 1963 until September 8, 1972, appellant was employed by appellee. He was transferred from New York to appellee's Coral Gables claim office in 1965, and he became unit supervisor of the office in 1968. On August 25, 1972, appellant received an inter-office communication from appellee's regional supervisor and manager of the Coral Gables office, William M. Conners. Appellant was informed that he had a choice of accepting a reassignment as a senior claim representative with the same pay and use of a company car, or he could resign. He refused to be reassigned or to resign, whereupon his employment was terminated.
A company severance plan provided for one or two week's pay for each full year of service. However, the plan disallowed benefits to any employee terminated 'for cause', including insubordination. Appellant was given a check from the appellee, representing two weeks severance pay. Thereafter, appellant filed his complaint seeking $3,762, the amount of severance pay which he alleged would be owed to him in accordance with the company plan.
At trial, appellant was the only witness. The basic issue which arose during the course of his testimony was whether or not appellant's refusal to be reassigned or to resign constituted insubordination. If it did, appellant would not be entitled to severance pay in accordance with the plan because he was terminated for cause. At the close of appellant's case the trial judge directed a verdict in favor of appellee.
The rule for directing a verdict in favor of a defendant is that unless it is clear that there is no evidence whatever adduced that could in law support a verdict for plaintiff, a court should not direct a verdict for the defendant. Whitman v. Red Top Sedan Service, Inc., Fla.App.1969, 218 So.2d 213; Mullis v. City of Miami, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 174, 176. We think the appellant presented evidence in this case which a jury might believe did not amount to termination...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan
...of stock option and so that new president could bring in his own men. Question of cause was for jury).37 See Strahm v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 285 So.2d 679 (Fla.App., 1973) (jury question whether plaintiff's refusal to accept reassignment or to resign was insubordination and whether d......
-
Video Electronics, Inc. v. Tedder
...fact failed to make the appropriate reports. Cf. Jimarye, Inc. v. Pipkin, 181 So.2d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966); Strahm v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 285 So.2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). In the present case, the trial court complied with the rule in Gundersheimer when it construed the employment......
-
Krestow v. Wooster
...reject such contentions and affirm. Gallegher v. Federal Insurance Co., 346 So.2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Strahm v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 285 So.2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Bell's Fish & Poultry Co. v. Jenkins, 227 So.2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969); Warfield v. Sparks, 203 So.2d 63 (Fla. 1......
-
Doll v. Robbins, 73--1529
...the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Kilburn v. Davenport, Fla.App.1973, 286 So.2d 241; Straham v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Fla.App.1973, 285 So.2d 679; Warriner v. Ramirez, Fla.App.1973, 280 So.2d 4; Nelson v. Ziegler, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 780; Mullis v. City of Mia......