Wheeler v. Hartford Life Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn.

• Decision Date: 27 September 1915
• Docket Number: 4277.
• Parties: WHEELER v. HARTFORD LIFE INS. CO., OF HARTFORD, CONN.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

227 F. 369

WHEELER v. HARTFORD LIFE INS. CO., OF HARTFORD, CONN.

No. 4277.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

September 27, 1915

J. W Crane, of Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiff in error.

Edward P. Sanborn, of St. Paul, Minn., for defendant in error.

Before CARLAND, Circuit Judge, and LEWIS and BOOTH, District Judges.

BOOTH District Judge.

Action for damages based upon an alleged breach of a written contract of agency between the plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, a citizen of Minnesota, and the defendant in error defendant below, a corporation of the state of Connecticut. The contract in controversy was entered into June 1, 1912 between the plaintiff and defendant, and became effective July 1, 1912. By its terms the plaintiff was constituted general agent of the defendant, for the purpose of soliciting applications for life insurance in the defendant company, and having as his territory the state of Minnesota. Plaintiff entered upon his duties as such agent on or about July 1 1912, and continued in defendant's employ until about the middle of February, 1913. During that time he collected the first year premiums upon all policies which were written by him, and retained his commissions thereon. No renewal premiums were due the company on said policies when plaintiff ceased to act as agent for defendant, and none would become due until July, 1913, and then only in case of renewals actually made. On January 6, 1913, defendant entered into a contract with the Missouri State Life Insurance Company of St. Louis, Mo., by which contract defendant reinsured its old-line, level premium, legal reserve policies with the last-named company. On January 7, 1913, and again on January 21, 1913, the defendant company wrote to the plaintiff, notifying him of said contract of reinsurance with the Missouri company, and that the contract would go into effect upon its approval by the insurance commissioners of Connecticut and Missouri. The contract of reinsurance was approved by the insurance commissioners of the two states mentioned on February 17, 1913. On March 1, 1913, the defendant's license to do business in the state of Minnesota expired, and on that day it ceased to do business in that state.

Shortly before February 17, 1913, the plaintiff ceased to take applications for the defendant, and February 20, 1913, commenced this action, demanding $7,500 damages for breach of his contract, claiming that the making and carrying out of the reinsurance contract by the defendant with the Missouri Insurance Company constituted a wrongful termination of the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant company. At the close of the evidence, on motion made by the defendant, the trial court directed the jury to return a verdict in defendant's favor. Verdict was so returned, and judgment was thereupon entered. Objection was duly made, and exception duly taken by the plaintiff's attorney.

The provisions of the contract between plaintiff and defendant, so far as material to the decision here, are as follows:

Section 8: 'If this contract shall be terminated by either party for any cause whatever, the compensation which shall then have been paid to the agent, together with the amount then due him under this contract, shall be in full settlement of all claims and demands upon the company in favor of the agent under this contract, and all further compensation which a continuance of said contract might have secured to him, shall be waived and forfeited, except as herein otherwise provided.'

Section 10: 'During the continuance of this contract and as hereinafter provided the company will pay on policies issued on and after the date on which this contract shall become effective on applications secured by and through the agent, as full compensation for all services, and full reimbursement for all expenditures, first year and renewal commissions in accordance with the following schedule. ' (Schedule follows.)

Section 13: 'If this contract is terminated within three years from date hereof by the death of the agent or for causes other than the violation of its conditions, the company will pay renewal commissions as provided above, less a collection charge of 2 per cent. on the premiums, for as many years as this contract shall have been in force.'

Section 21: 'Either party to this contract may terminate same by giving to the other party 30 days' notice in writing to that effect, and the power of the agent to collect and receive premiums shall cease with the termination of this contract.'

It does not appear from the record upon what grounds the verdict was directed in favor of the defendant, but it is conceded by both parties that the trial court held that the case was controlled by the decision of this court in the case of Moore v. Security Trust & Life Ins. Co., 168 F. 496, 93 C.C.A. 652. Plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in thus holding, and in directing a verdict, and contends that the decision in the Moore Case does not apply, because in that case the agency contract involved was construed to be one at will, while in the case at bar the agency contract should be construed as one for a fixed term.

The defendant contends that the action of the trial court in directing a verdict for the defendant was right: (1) Because no breach of the plaintiff's contract was shown upon the trial. (2) Because the express terms of the contract preclude any recovery in this case. (3) Because if, as the plaintiff claims, the making of the contract by the defendant with the Missouri Insurance Company terminated plaintiff's contract with the defendant, then the notice to plaintiff in writing on January 7 and January 21, 1913, was a sufficient notice under section 21 of the contract. (4) Because, even if any right of recovery under the terms of the contract accrues in favor of the plaintiff, the present action was prematurely brought.

It will not be necessary to discuss these several propositions at length or in detail, because, in our opinion, the case of Moore v. Insurance Co., supra, is decisive of the case at bar. That case involved an insurance agency contract, which, as well as the facts surrounding its inception, its performance and its termination, were all quite similar to those in the case at bar. The facts in the Moore Case were thus stated in the court's opinion:

'The contract between the defendant insurance company and its agents, the plaintiffs, was in writing, and it took effect on May 15, 1904. By the terms of that agreement the insurance company appointed the plaintiffs its agents in the state of Kansas and promised to pay them certain commissions during the continuance of their agency, and that after the termination of the contract a commission of 7 1/2 per cent. would be paid to them on renewal premiums upon the insurance which they

...