McClure v. American Family Mutural Insurance Company

This case grows out of the termination of Mary McClure and Gary Kemp as
agents for American Family Mutual Insurance Company after they lobbied for
insurance legislation which the company opposed. McClure and Kemp sued American Family, related companies, and company officers for breach of contract, defamation,
and other torts. The district court1 granted summary judgment to the defendants on all
claims except for McClure’s breach of contract claim which was tried to a jury. That
trial resulted in a defense verdict, and judgments were entered in favor of the
defendants. McClure and Kemp appeal, and we affirm.

I.

Defendants American Family Mutual Insurance Company, American Standard
Insurance Company of Wisconsin, and the American Family Life Insurance Company
(together, American Family) are affiliated Wisconsin corporations operating under
common management. David Krueger, Daniel DeSalvo, Harvey Pierce, and Dale
Mathwich are officers of American Family. American Family is licensed to sell
insurance in Minnesota, and it sells a full line of insurance products, including property,
casualty, life, auto, and commercial insurance. American Family markets its insurance
through exclusive agents whose relationships with it are governed by written contracts
which state that they supersede all prior agreements.2 Its exclusive agents are required
to sell all types of insurance offered by American Family.

McClure and Kemp were both exclusive agents under contract with American
Family. Kemp first entered into an agency agreement with American Family in 1967
and McClure in 1986. Both agents sold the full line of American Family insurance products and were prohibited by contract from selling the products of any other
insurance company. See Appellants’ App., 110, 121. McClure worked out of
Mankato and Kemp out of West St. Paul, Minnesota. Between them they had
approximately 2600 clients.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text of the
Court's opinion.

After a thorough review, we conclude that the district court did not err in
granting its summary judgment or abuse its discretion in instructing the jury on
McClure’s contract claim. The judgments of the district court are affirmed.

Unknown

Unknown

None