Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Curt W. Root v. Farmer Insurance Exchange, Farmers Insurance Co., Inc., Farmers Insurance Group of Companies, Farmers New World Life Insurance Company , Fire Insurance Exchange, Mid-Century Insurance Company
Date: 01-21-2014
Case Number: CJ-2011-2569
Judge: Thomas E. Prince
Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma
Plaintiff's Attorney: Victor F. Albert and Crystal A. Johnson
Defendant's Attorney: Timilia Rother and Alison M. Howard
Description:
Curt W. Root sued Farmer Insurance Exchange, Farmers Insurance Co., Inc., Farmers Insurance Group of Companies, Farmers New World Life Insurance Company , Fire Insurance Exchange, Mid-Century Insurance Company on a bad faith insurer liability theory claiming:
1. Plaintiff, Mr. Root, is a resident of Guymon, Oklahoma.
2. Defendant, Farmers Insurance Group of Companies is a collection of insurance companies with its principal place of business and place of incorporation in a state other than Oklahoma.
3. Defendant, Farmers Insurance Exchange, is an insurance company with its principal place of business and place of incorporation in a state other than Oklahoma.
4. Defendant, Truck Insurance Exchange, is an insurance company with its principal place of business and place of incorporation in a state other than Oklahoma.
5. Defendant, Fire Insurance Exchange, is an insurance company with its principal place of business and place of incorporation in a state other than Oklahoma.
6. Defendant, Mid-Century Insurance Company, is an insurance company with its principal place of business and place of incorporation in a state other than Oklahoma.
7. Defendant, Farmers New World Life Insurance Company, is an insurance company with its principal place of business and place of incorporation in a state other than Oklahoma.
8. Defendant, Farmers Insurance Co. Inc., is an insurance company with its principal place of business and place of incorporation in a state other than Oklahoma.
JURISDICTION
9. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action. The amount in controversy is over $10,000 which places this matter on the Court's regular civil docket. Furthermore, this matter was filed originally on October 30, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, and was dismissed without prejudice on April 16, 2010. This mailer is filed in this Court within the one year time-period of 12 O.S. § 100.
VENUE
10. Venue is proper in this Court under 12 O.S. § 137 because Defendants are foreign insurance companies who have agents in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.
FACTS
11. In 1968, Mr. Root became appointed as an agent for Defendants, authorized to sell the products of the Defendants. On March 16, 1973, Mr. Root formally entered into a contract with Defendants to become an agent authorized to sell the products of the Defendants. In subsequent years, as Defendants required, Mr. Root entered into similar and addendum contracts.
12. Implied in each contract were the agreements by Defendants to not terminate the contracts without good cause and in bad faith, and to not discriminate against Mr. Root on the basis of his age.
13. Defendants represented to Mr. Root over the terms of the contracts that they would not terminate the contracts without good cause and in bad faith, and that they would not discriminate against him on the basis of his age. Mr. Root relied on those representations in obtaining business for and writing policies from the Defendant companies.
14. During his over 40 years of relationship as an agent for Defendants, Mr. Root built a clientele of customers, and was awarded with Defendants' honors of Toppers Club six times, Commercial Masters honor five times, and countless life insurance awards. His underwriting authority has always been the "preferred†designation, and was reflected in a maximum underwriting bonus on the contract value of his agency with Defendants.
15. Mr. Root believed he was entitled to continue his agency relationship with Defendants, and planned and expected to do so.
16. In late 2008 or early 2009, the District Manager for Defendants came to Mr. Root's office unannounced, told Mr. Root he was "too old†to continue as an agent with the Defendants, and asked him when he was planning to retire. When Mr. Root told him that he did not plan to retire, the District Manager set out on a course of action to force Mr. Root to retire. Later, even when Mr. Root did not retire despite this course of action, the District Manager told Mr. Root that Defendants were exercising their rights to unilaterally terminate the relationship. Mr. Root was 74 years old at the time. Defendants terminated his agency relationships and reassigned all of his policies to the new agent in Guymon who was much less experienced and much less younger than Mr. Root.
17. In addition to telling Mr. Root that he was too old to continue as an agent, Defendants told him that he was not profitable as an agent, and this was false, At the time, and for the past several years prior to his termination, Mr. Root had been profitable as an agent, and was as profitable or more so than other agents in the District who were not terminated. Any business Mr. Root lost was not due to his age, but to economic factors over which he had no control.
18. On February 28, 2009, Defendants terminated the contracts and agency relationship with Mr. Root without good cause and in bad faith, and in such a manner and procedure as to be beyond all bounds of reasonableness and decency. Defendants based such termination, among other unreasonable factors, in part on Mr. Root's age, and their desire to move Mr. Root's customers to another younger agent for Defendants in the Guymon, Oklahoma, area.
19. Defendants then set about a course to obtain the policy-holders files from Mr. Root that was offensive and designed to cause embarrassment and harassment to Mr. Root, including, sending the new Guymon agent unannounced to Mr. Root's office to insist on taking possession of the files of policy-holders for whom Mr. Root had interacted for many years.
20. These actions were each in breach of the agreements and representations that Defendants had made to Mr. Root that they would not terminate the agency relationship with Mr. Root without good cause and in bad faith, and on the basis of his age. Further, the manner and procedure by which Defendants carried out the termination of the agency relationship were egregious, willful and beyond the bounds of all decency expected.
21. The actions by Defendants caused extreme emotional stress and distress to Mr. Root requiring him to seek medical attention and care.
22. The actions of Defendants have caused past, present and future harm and damages to Mr. Root for lost income, lost commissions, lost business relationships and opportunities, mental and emotional distress, damage to reputation and other damages.
23. The actions of Defendants were willffil, wanton, reckless and in total disregard for Mr. Root, such that punitive damages to the highest extent allowed under Oklahoma law should be awarded against Defendants as an example and to deter any such future conduct by them.
COUNT I: BREACH OF CONTRACT
24. Mr. Root re-alleges and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 23 as though fully set forth herein.
25. The actions of Defendants in the decision to terminate the contracts and relationship without good cause and in bad faith, and in part on the basis of Mr. Root's age, are each breaches of the implied and express terms of the contracts and relationship.
26. Such breaches have caused Mr. Root the breach of contract damages alleged above, and for which Defendants should be held liable.
COUNT II: BAD FAITH BREACH OF CONTRACT
27. Mr. Root re-alleges and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 26 as though filly set forth herein.
28. These actions were undertaken intentionally and purposefully by Defendants with an intent to deprive Mr. Root of the fruits of his contracts with policyholders, particularly the renewal commissions, earned and future, that he was entitled to receive. After Defendants did this, they parceled out the income to a newer, younger agent in Guymon to help his production numbers and profitability.
29. The actions of Defendants in the decision to terminate the contracts and relationship without good cause and in bad faith, and in part on the basis of Mr. Root's age, are each bad faith breaches of the implied and express terms of the contracts and relationship.
30. Such breaches have caused Mr. Root the damages alleged above, and for which Defendants should be held liable.
COUNT III: FRAUI
31. Mr. Root re-alleges and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 30 as though flilly set forth herein.
32. Defendants continually stated over the course of Mr. Root's affiliation with them that they would not make agency relationship decisions on the basis of an agent's age, and particularly that they would not terminate an agency relationship on the basis of the agent's age. This was reiterated to Mr. Root directly by the District Manager at his evaluations, particularly the annual evaluations in 2006, 2007 and 2008, and other years. This was also reiterated to Mr. Root in the written materials provided to Mr. Root from Defendants as to the criteria for selecting and retaining agents.
33. The actions of Defendants caused Mr. Root to believe that Defendants would not terminate the contracts and relationship without good cause and in bad faith, and in part on the basis of Mr. Root's age, and Mr. Root relied on those actions in building the business and customer base for Defendants.
34. Defendants misrepresented theses facts to Mr. Root, to his detriment.
35. Such actions constitute fraud, and have caused Mr. Root the damages alleged above, for which Defendants should be held liable.
COUNT IV: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
36. Mr. Root re-alleges and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 35 as though fully set forth herein.
37. The actions of Defendants in both the substance and procedure of terminating the contracts and relationship without good cause and in bad faith, and in part on the basis of Mr. Root's age, are intentional, incredible, outrageous and beyond the bounds of all civil decency.
38. Such actions constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress, and have caused Mr. Root the damages alleged above, for which Defendants should be held liable.
COUNT V: NEGLIGENCE
39. Mr. Root re-alleges and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 38 as though fully set forth herein.
40. Defendants owed a duty to Mr. Root in both the substance and procedure of the contracts and relationship to not base the termination decision on his age, and to have done so was a breach of that duty.
41. Defendants' breach of that duty has proximately caused losses, damages and hanu to Mr. Root.
42. Such actions constitute negligence, and have caused Mr. Root the damages alleged above, for which Defendants should be held liable.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Curt W. Root, respectfully requests this Court enter a judgment providing as follows:
1. Awarding him the damages caused by Defendants;
2. Awarding him punitive damages to deter Defendants from similar conduct in the future
3. Awarding him his costs and attorneys' fees of this action;
4. Awarding him pre- and post- judgment interest; and
5. Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants appeared and answered as follows:
Defendants,2 Farmers Insurance Exchange, Truck Insurance Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange, Mid-Century Insurance Company, Farmers New World Life Insurance Company, and Farmers Insurance Company, Inc. (collectively Defendants), deny each and every allegation in Plaintiffs Petition filed April 15, 2011 unless hereinafter specifically admitted. Thus, in Answer to and in defense of Plaintiffs allegations, Defendants state:
1. Upon information and belief, paragraph 1 of the Petition is admitted.
2. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 2 of the Petition. "Farmers Insurance Group†of Companies is a federally registered service mark and not a legal entity. The service mark "Farmers Insurance Group†was registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on February 15, 1994, with registration number 1,821,673. A service mark cannot have taken the actions alleged in the Petition. Further, as a service mark, Farmers Insurance Group carmot be served with process and in fact there is no record of service. For these reasons, no Answer is necessary as to Farmers Insurance Group of Companies, and instead it should be stricken from the Petition for lack of capacity to be sued, insufficiency of process or service of process, and lack ofjurisdiction.
3. As to paragraph 3 of the Petition, Defendants deny that Farmers Insurance Exchange is "incorporated†or a "company.†Rather, Farmers Insurance Exchange is a reciprocal, inter-insurance exchange. The allegations of paragraph 3 are otherwise admitted.
4. As to paragraph 4 of the Petition, Defendants deny that Truck Insurance Exchange is "incorporated†or a "company.†Rather, Truck Insurance Exchange is a reciprocal, inter-insurance exchange. The allegations of paragraph 4 are otherwise admitted.
5. As to paragraph 5 of the Petition, Defendants deny that Fire Insurance Exchange is "incorporated†or a "company.†Rather, Fire Insurance Exchange is a reciprocal, interinsurance exchange. The allegations of paragraph 5 are otherwise admitted.
6. Admitted.
7. Admitted.
8. Admitted.
9. The allegations of paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs Petition are legal conclusions which require no factual response from Defendants. However, Defendants do not dispute personal jurisdiction over Defendants, except Farmers Insurance Group of Companies which is not an entity and thus exercise of jurisdiction inapplicable. Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to recover in excess of $10,000 or any other amount from Defendants and further states that Plaintiff has not complied with 12 O.S. § 2008 (A) (2) as to pleading the amount in controversy. Any factual allegations implied in paragraph 9 of the Petition are denied.
10. The allegations of paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs Petition are legal conclusions which require no factual response from Defendants. However, Defendants do not dispute that venue exists, but state that a more convenient forum may exist per 12 O.S. § 140,2. Any factual allegations implied in paragraph 10 of the Petition are denied.
11. Defendants admit that Plaintiff first became an independent contractor/agent with Defendants in 1968, that an Agent Appointment Agreement was signed in March 1973 under which Plaintiff sold insurance products of Defendants, and that Plaintiff thereafter entered into a new Agent Appointment Agreements with Defendants. Any remaining factual allegations in paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs Petition are denied.
12. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Petition.
13. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 13 of the Petition.
14. Defendants admit that Plaintiff serviced and sold policies to Defendants clients and customers while he was an independent contractor insurance agent for Defendants, and received some recognitions and awards. He also sometimes had a preferred underwriting designation and periodically received underwriting bonuses. However, Defendants state that by the time his contract was terminated, Plaintiffs had lost over 30% of policies in force, would not attend district meetings, refused to engage in a marketing pian and was underperforming at virtually all levels. The remaining allegations in paragraph 14 of the Petition are denied.
15. Defendants are without information or belief as to what Plaintiff believed, but state that the Agent Appointment Agreement controlled Plaintiffs relationship with Defendants and provided for termination of Plaintiffs Agreement under the terms here exercised by Defendants. Therefore, the allegations of paragraph 15 of the Petition are denied.
16. Defendants admit that they terminated Plaintiffs Agent Appointment Agreement for inadequate performance, including substantial loss of policies in force. However, Defendants did so only after multiple efforts by the District Manager to counsel with Plaintiff Upon information and belief, Defendants admit that Plaintiff was 74 at the time of the termination. All remaining allegations of paragraph 16 of the Petition are denied.
17. As to the allegations of paragraph 17 of the Petition, Defendant states that Plaintiffs agency was quickly deteriorating, necessitating termination of Plaintiffs Agreement. All remaining allegations of paragraph 17 of the Petition are denied.
18. As to the allegations of paragraph 18 of the Petition, Defendants admit that they terminated their contractual relationship with Plaintiff effective February 28, 2009. The remaining allegations of paragraph 18 of the Petition are denied.
19. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 19 of the Petition.
20. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 20 of the Petition.
21. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 21 of the Petition.
22. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 22 of the Petition.
23. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 23 of the Petition.
24. Defendants herein incorporate their response to paragraphs 1-23 of the Petition.
25. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 24 of the Petition.
26. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 25 of the Petition.
27. Defendants herein incorporate their response to paragraphs 1-26 of the Petition.
28. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 28 of the Petition.
29. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 29 of the Petition.
30. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 30 of the Petition.
31. Defendants herein incorporate their response to paragraphs 1-30 of the Petition.
32. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 32 of the Petition.
33. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 33 of the Petition.
34. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 34 of the Petition.
35. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 35 of the Petition.
36. Defendants herein incorporate their response to paragraphs 1-35 of the Petition.
37. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 37 of the Petition.
38. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 38 of the Petition.
39. Defendants herein incorporate their response to paragraphs 1-36 of the Petition.
40. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 40 of the Petition.
41. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 41 of the Petition.
42. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 42 of the Petition.
Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested in its concluding paragraph and prayer for damages, and asserts that judgment should be entered in favor of Defendants, including its attorney fees and costs in this action.
DEFENSES
1. Plaintiffs Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
2. Plaintiff Petition fails to plead fraud with the particularity required by 12 O.S. §2009(B), as argued in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed concurrently herewith, and judgment on Plaintiffs fraud claim should be entered in favor of Defendants.
3. Plaintiffs fraud claim fails on the face of the Petition because promises as to future conduct, as pled by Plaintiff, camot form the basis of a fraud claim, as argued in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed concurrently herewith, and judgment on Plaintiffs fraud claim should be entered in favor of Defendants.
4. The alleged conduct, as a matter of law, is neither extreme nor outrageous as is necessary to sustain a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, as argued in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed concurrently herewith, and judgment should be entered in favor of Defendant on that claim.
5. Oklahoma law does not recognize a cause of action for negligent breach of contract, as argued in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed concurrently herewith, and judgment should be entered in favor of Defendant on that claim.
6. Defendants have acted in accord with the provisions of the Agent Appointment Agreement which governs the relationship between the parties.
7. Plaintiff has not acted in accord with and has failed to satisfy his obligations under the Agent Appointment Agreement.
8. All or part of Plaintiffs claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
9. Plaintiffs claims are barred by laches.
10. Plaintiff has been paid the value of the business he claims as damages, as provided by the Agent Appointment Agreement, and therefore there has been a complete satisfaction of all amounts owed to Plaintiff and/or any recovery must be reduced by the amount of those payments.
11. Plaintiff has unclean hands.
12. Plaintiff is estopped and has waived the claims pled.
13. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages.
14. To the extent plaintiff can state a negligence claim, his own negligence exceeded any negligence by Defendants, thus barring any recovery.
15. The Petition names a federally registered service mark, 'Farmers Insurance Group of Companies,†as a defendant, and the federally registered service mark is not a legal entity which may be sewed or sued. The name of the federally registered service mark, "Farmers Insurance Group,†should be stricken from the caption and the Petition for lack of capacity to be sued, insufficiency of service of process, insufficiency of process and lack of jurisdiction, both subject matter and personal.
16. An award of punitive damages to Plaintiff under the facts and circumstances alleged would deny Defendants their rights under, and violate, the Constitutions of the United States of America and of Oklahoma as it would violate Defendant's due process rights, constitute an excessive fine and would be a penalty in violation of law. Further, to the extent Plaintiff attempts to recover punitive damages under Oklahoma's punitive damages statute, 23 Okla. Stat. § 9.1, such statute is unconstitutional under the due process clause of the United States Constitution and the decisions of the United States Supreme Court thereunder on its face and as applied.
17. Defendants reserve the right to amend or supplement these defenses as discovery proceeds. Additionally, the assertion of any matter as a defense does not imply that Defendants have the burden of proof on any issue, but rather the burden of proof shall be as required by applicable law.
Wherefore, Defendants respectfully requests that Plaintiffs Petition be dismissed, that judgment be granted to Defendants on all claims, and that Defendants be awarded their attorney fees and costs and all other relief this Court deems appropriate.
1. Plaintiff, Mr. Root, is a resident of Guymon, Oklahoma.
2. Defendant, Farmers Insurance Group of Companies is a collection of insurance companies with its principal place of business and place of incorporation in a state other than Oklahoma.
3. Defendant, Farmers Insurance Exchange, is an insurance company with its principal place of business and place of incorporation in a state other than Oklahoma.
4. Defendant, Truck Insurance Exchange, is an insurance company with its principal place of business and place of incorporation in a state other than Oklahoma.
5. Defendant, Fire Insurance Exchange, is an insurance company with its principal place of business and place of incorporation in a state other than Oklahoma.
6. Defendant, Mid-Century Insurance Company, is an insurance company with its principal place of business and place of incorporation in a state other than Oklahoma.
7. Defendant, Farmers New World Life Insurance Company, is an insurance company with its principal place of business and place of incorporation in a state other than Oklahoma.
8. Defendant, Farmers Insurance Co. Inc., is an insurance company with its principal place of business and place of incorporation in a state other than Oklahoma.
JURISDICTION
9. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action. The amount in controversy is over $10,000 which places this matter on the Court's regular civil docket. Furthermore, this matter was filed originally on October 30, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, and was dismissed without prejudice on April 16, 2010. This mailer is filed in this Court within the one year time-period of 12 O.S. § 100.
VENUE
10. Venue is proper in this Court under 12 O.S. § 137 because Defendants are foreign insurance companies who have agents in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.
FACTS
11. In 1968, Mr. Root became appointed as an agent for Defendants, authorized to sell the products of the Defendants. On March 16, 1973, Mr. Root formally entered into a contract with Defendants to become an agent authorized to sell the products of the Defendants. In subsequent years, as Defendants required, Mr. Root entered into similar and addendum contracts.
12. Implied in each contract were the agreements by Defendants to not terminate the contracts without good cause and in bad faith, and to not discriminate against Mr. Root on the basis of his age.
13. Defendants represented to Mr. Root over the terms of the contracts that they would not terminate the contracts without good cause and in bad faith, and that they would not discriminate against him on the basis of his age. Mr. Root relied on those representations in obtaining business for and writing policies from the Defendant companies.
14. During his over 40 years of relationship as an agent for Defendants, Mr. Root built a clientele of customers, and was awarded with Defendants' honors of Toppers Club six times, Commercial Masters honor five times, and countless life insurance awards. His underwriting authority has always been the "preferred†designation, and was reflected in a maximum underwriting bonus on the contract value of his agency with Defendants.
15. Mr. Root believed he was entitled to continue his agency relationship with Defendants, and planned and expected to do so.
16. In late 2008 or early 2009, the District Manager for Defendants came to Mr. Root's office unannounced, told Mr. Root he was "too old†to continue as an agent with the Defendants, and asked him when he was planning to retire. When Mr. Root told him that he did not plan to retire, the District Manager set out on a course of action to force Mr. Root to retire. Later, even when Mr. Root did not retire despite this course of action, the District Manager told Mr. Root that Defendants were exercising their rights to unilaterally terminate the relationship. Mr. Root was 74 years old at the time. Defendants terminated his agency relationships and reassigned all of his policies to the new agent in Guymon who was much less experienced and much less younger than Mr. Root.
17. In addition to telling Mr. Root that he was too old to continue as an agent, Defendants told him that he was not profitable as an agent, and this was false, At the time, and for the past several years prior to his termination, Mr. Root had been profitable as an agent, and was as profitable or more so than other agents in the District who were not terminated. Any business Mr. Root lost was not due to his age, but to economic factors over which he had no control.
18. On February 28, 2009, Defendants terminated the contracts and agency relationship with Mr. Root without good cause and in bad faith, and in such a manner and procedure as to be beyond all bounds of reasonableness and decency. Defendants based such termination, among other unreasonable factors, in part on Mr. Root's age, and their desire to move Mr. Root's customers to another younger agent for Defendants in the Guymon, Oklahoma, area.
19. Defendants then set about a course to obtain the policy-holders files from Mr. Root that was offensive and designed to cause embarrassment and harassment to Mr. Root, including, sending the new Guymon agent unannounced to Mr. Root's office to insist on taking possession of the files of policy-holders for whom Mr. Root had interacted for many years.
20. These actions were each in breach of the agreements and representations that Defendants had made to Mr. Root that they would not terminate the agency relationship with Mr. Root without good cause and in bad faith, and on the basis of his age. Further, the manner and procedure by which Defendants carried out the termination of the agency relationship were egregious, willful and beyond the bounds of all decency expected.
21. The actions by Defendants caused extreme emotional stress and distress to Mr. Root requiring him to seek medical attention and care.
22. The actions of Defendants have caused past, present and future harm and damages to Mr. Root for lost income, lost commissions, lost business relationships and opportunities, mental and emotional distress, damage to reputation and other damages.
23. The actions of Defendants were willffil, wanton, reckless and in total disregard for Mr. Root, such that punitive damages to the highest extent allowed under Oklahoma law should be awarded against Defendants as an example and to deter any such future conduct by them.
COUNT I: BREACH OF CONTRACT
24. Mr. Root re-alleges and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 23 as though fully set forth herein.
25. The actions of Defendants in the decision to terminate the contracts and relationship without good cause and in bad faith, and in part on the basis of Mr. Root's age, are each breaches of the implied and express terms of the contracts and relationship.
26. Such breaches have caused Mr. Root the breach of contract damages alleged above, and for which Defendants should be held liable.
COUNT II: BAD FAITH BREACH OF CONTRACT
27. Mr. Root re-alleges and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 26 as though filly set forth herein.
28. These actions were undertaken intentionally and purposefully by Defendants with an intent to deprive Mr. Root of the fruits of his contracts with policyholders, particularly the renewal commissions, earned and future, that he was entitled to receive. After Defendants did this, they parceled out the income to a newer, younger agent in Guymon to help his production numbers and profitability.
29. The actions of Defendants in the decision to terminate the contracts and relationship without good cause and in bad faith, and in part on the basis of Mr. Root's age, are each bad faith breaches of the implied and express terms of the contracts and relationship.
30. Such breaches have caused Mr. Root the damages alleged above, and for which Defendants should be held liable.
COUNT III: FRAUI
31. Mr. Root re-alleges and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 30 as though flilly set forth herein.
32. Defendants continually stated over the course of Mr. Root's affiliation with them that they would not make agency relationship decisions on the basis of an agent's age, and particularly that they would not terminate an agency relationship on the basis of the agent's age. This was reiterated to Mr. Root directly by the District Manager at his evaluations, particularly the annual evaluations in 2006, 2007 and 2008, and other years. This was also reiterated to Mr. Root in the written materials provided to Mr. Root from Defendants as to the criteria for selecting and retaining agents.
33. The actions of Defendants caused Mr. Root to believe that Defendants would not terminate the contracts and relationship without good cause and in bad faith, and in part on the basis of Mr. Root's age, and Mr. Root relied on those actions in building the business and customer base for Defendants.
34. Defendants misrepresented theses facts to Mr. Root, to his detriment.
35. Such actions constitute fraud, and have caused Mr. Root the damages alleged above, for which Defendants should be held liable.
COUNT IV: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
36. Mr. Root re-alleges and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 35 as though fully set forth herein.
37. The actions of Defendants in both the substance and procedure of terminating the contracts and relationship without good cause and in bad faith, and in part on the basis of Mr. Root's age, are intentional, incredible, outrageous and beyond the bounds of all civil decency.
38. Such actions constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress, and have caused Mr. Root the damages alleged above, for which Defendants should be held liable.
COUNT V: NEGLIGENCE
39. Mr. Root re-alleges and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 38 as though fully set forth herein.
40. Defendants owed a duty to Mr. Root in both the substance and procedure of the contracts and relationship to not base the termination decision on his age, and to have done so was a breach of that duty.
41. Defendants' breach of that duty has proximately caused losses, damages and hanu to Mr. Root.
42. Such actions constitute negligence, and have caused Mr. Root the damages alleged above, for which Defendants should be held liable.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Curt W. Root, respectfully requests this Court enter a judgment providing as follows:
1. Awarding him the damages caused by Defendants;
2. Awarding him punitive damages to deter Defendants from similar conduct in the future
3. Awarding him his costs and attorneys' fees of this action;
4. Awarding him pre- and post- judgment interest; and
5. Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants appeared and answered as follows:
Defendants,2 Farmers Insurance Exchange, Truck Insurance Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange, Mid-Century Insurance Company, Farmers New World Life Insurance Company, and Farmers Insurance Company, Inc. (collectively Defendants), deny each and every allegation in Plaintiffs Petition filed April 15, 2011 unless hereinafter specifically admitted. Thus, in Answer to and in defense of Plaintiffs allegations, Defendants state:
1. Upon information and belief, paragraph 1 of the Petition is admitted.
2. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 2 of the Petition. "Farmers Insurance Group†of Companies is a federally registered service mark and not a legal entity. The service mark "Farmers Insurance Group†was registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on February 15, 1994, with registration number 1,821,673. A service mark cannot have taken the actions alleged in the Petition. Further, as a service mark, Farmers Insurance Group carmot be served with process and in fact there is no record of service. For these reasons, no Answer is necessary as to Farmers Insurance Group of Companies, and instead it should be stricken from the Petition for lack of capacity to be sued, insufficiency of process or service of process, and lack ofjurisdiction.
3. As to paragraph 3 of the Petition, Defendants deny that Farmers Insurance Exchange is "incorporated†or a "company.†Rather, Farmers Insurance Exchange is a reciprocal, inter-insurance exchange. The allegations of paragraph 3 are otherwise admitted.
4. As to paragraph 4 of the Petition, Defendants deny that Truck Insurance Exchange is "incorporated†or a "company.†Rather, Truck Insurance Exchange is a reciprocal, inter-insurance exchange. The allegations of paragraph 4 are otherwise admitted.
5. As to paragraph 5 of the Petition, Defendants deny that Fire Insurance Exchange is "incorporated†or a "company.†Rather, Fire Insurance Exchange is a reciprocal, interinsurance exchange. The allegations of paragraph 5 are otherwise admitted.
6. Admitted.
7. Admitted.
8. Admitted.
9. The allegations of paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs Petition are legal conclusions which require no factual response from Defendants. However, Defendants do not dispute personal jurisdiction over Defendants, except Farmers Insurance Group of Companies which is not an entity and thus exercise of jurisdiction inapplicable. Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to recover in excess of $10,000 or any other amount from Defendants and further states that Plaintiff has not complied with 12 O.S. § 2008 (A) (2) as to pleading the amount in controversy. Any factual allegations implied in paragraph 9 of the Petition are denied.
10. The allegations of paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs Petition are legal conclusions which require no factual response from Defendants. However, Defendants do not dispute that venue exists, but state that a more convenient forum may exist per 12 O.S. § 140,2. Any factual allegations implied in paragraph 10 of the Petition are denied.
11. Defendants admit that Plaintiff first became an independent contractor/agent with Defendants in 1968, that an Agent Appointment Agreement was signed in March 1973 under which Plaintiff sold insurance products of Defendants, and that Plaintiff thereafter entered into a new Agent Appointment Agreements with Defendants. Any remaining factual allegations in paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs Petition are denied.
12. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Petition.
13. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 13 of the Petition.
14. Defendants admit that Plaintiff serviced and sold policies to Defendants clients and customers while he was an independent contractor insurance agent for Defendants, and received some recognitions and awards. He also sometimes had a preferred underwriting designation and periodically received underwriting bonuses. However, Defendants state that by the time his contract was terminated, Plaintiffs had lost over 30% of policies in force, would not attend district meetings, refused to engage in a marketing pian and was underperforming at virtually all levels. The remaining allegations in paragraph 14 of the Petition are denied.
15. Defendants are without information or belief as to what Plaintiff believed, but state that the Agent Appointment Agreement controlled Plaintiffs relationship with Defendants and provided for termination of Plaintiffs Agreement under the terms here exercised by Defendants. Therefore, the allegations of paragraph 15 of the Petition are denied.
16. Defendants admit that they terminated Plaintiffs Agent Appointment Agreement for inadequate performance, including substantial loss of policies in force. However, Defendants did so only after multiple efforts by the District Manager to counsel with Plaintiff Upon information and belief, Defendants admit that Plaintiff was 74 at the time of the termination. All remaining allegations of paragraph 16 of the Petition are denied.
17. As to the allegations of paragraph 17 of the Petition, Defendant states that Plaintiffs agency was quickly deteriorating, necessitating termination of Plaintiffs Agreement. All remaining allegations of paragraph 17 of the Petition are denied.
18. As to the allegations of paragraph 18 of the Petition, Defendants admit that they terminated their contractual relationship with Plaintiff effective February 28, 2009. The remaining allegations of paragraph 18 of the Petition are denied.
19. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 19 of the Petition.
20. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 20 of the Petition.
21. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 21 of the Petition.
22. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 22 of the Petition.
23. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 23 of the Petition.
24. Defendants herein incorporate their response to paragraphs 1-23 of the Petition.
25. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 24 of the Petition.
26. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 25 of the Petition.
27. Defendants herein incorporate their response to paragraphs 1-26 of the Petition.
28. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 28 of the Petition.
29. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 29 of the Petition.
30. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 30 of the Petition.
31. Defendants herein incorporate their response to paragraphs 1-30 of the Petition.
32. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 32 of the Petition.
33. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 33 of the Petition.
34. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 34 of the Petition.
35. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 35 of the Petition.
36. Defendants herein incorporate their response to paragraphs 1-35 of the Petition.
37. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 37 of the Petition.
38. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 38 of the Petition.
39. Defendants herein incorporate their response to paragraphs 1-36 of the Petition.
40. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 40 of the Petition.
41. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 41 of the Petition.
42. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 42 of the Petition.
Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested in its concluding paragraph and prayer for damages, and asserts that judgment should be entered in favor of Defendants, including its attorney fees and costs in this action.
DEFENSES
1. Plaintiffs Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
2. Plaintiff Petition fails to plead fraud with the particularity required by 12 O.S. §2009(B), as argued in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed concurrently herewith, and judgment on Plaintiffs fraud claim should be entered in favor of Defendants.
3. Plaintiffs fraud claim fails on the face of the Petition because promises as to future conduct, as pled by Plaintiff, camot form the basis of a fraud claim, as argued in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed concurrently herewith, and judgment on Plaintiffs fraud claim should be entered in favor of Defendants.
4. The alleged conduct, as a matter of law, is neither extreme nor outrageous as is necessary to sustain a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, as argued in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed concurrently herewith, and judgment should be entered in favor of Defendant on that claim.
5. Oklahoma law does not recognize a cause of action for negligent breach of contract, as argued in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed concurrently herewith, and judgment should be entered in favor of Defendant on that claim.
6. Defendants have acted in accord with the provisions of the Agent Appointment Agreement which governs the relationship between the parties.
7. Plaintiff has not acted in accord with and has failed to satisfy his obligations under the Agent Appointment Agreement.
8. All or part of Plaintiffs claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
9. Plaintiffs claims are barred by laches.
10. Plaintiff has been paid the value of the business he claims as damages, as provided by the Agent Appointment Agreement, and therefore there has been a complete satisfaction of all amounts owed to Plaintiff and/or any recovery must be reduced by the amount of those payments.
11. Plaintiff has unclean hands.
12. Plaintiff is estopped and has waived the claims pled.
13. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages.
14. To the extent plaintiff can state a negligence claim, his own negligence exceeded any negligence by Defendants, thus barring any recovery.
15. The Petition names a federally registered service mark, 'Farmers Insurance Group of Companies,†as a defendant, and the federally registered service mark is not a legal entity which may be sewed or sued. The name of the federally registered service mark, "Farmers Insurance Group,†should be stricken from the caption and the Petition for lack of capacity to be sued, insufficiency of service of process, insufficiency of process and lack of jurisdiction, both subject matter and personal.
16. An award of punitive damages to Plaintiff under the facts and circumstances alleged would deny Defendants their rights under, and violate, the Constitutions of the United States of America and of Oklahoma as it would violate Defendant's due process rights, constitute an excessive fine and would be a penalty in violation of law. Further, to the extent Plaintiff attempts to recover punitive damages under Oklahoma's punitive damages statute, 23 Okla. Stat. § 9.1, such statute is unconstitutional under the due process clause of the United States Constitution and the decisions of the United States Supreme Court thereunder on its face and as applied.
17. Defendants reserve the right to amend or supplement these defenses as discovery proceeds. Additionally, the assertion of any matter as a defense does not imply that Defendants have the burden of proof on any issue, but rather the burden of proof shall be as required by applicable law.
Wherefore, Defendants respectfully requests that Plaintiffs Petition be dismissed, that judgment be granted to Defendants on all claims, and that Defendants be awarded their attorney fees and costs and all other relief this Court deems appropriate.
Outcome:
Settled and dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Curt W. Root v. Farmer Insurance Exchange, Farmers Insura...?
The outcome was: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.
Which court heard Curt W. Root v. Farmer Insurance Exchange, Farmers Insura...?
This case was heard in District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, OK. The presiding judge was Thomas E. Prince.
Who were the attorneys in Curt W. Root v. Farmer Insurance Exchange, Farmers Insura...?
Plaintiff's attorney: Victor F. Albert and Crystal A. Johnson. Defendant's attorney: Timilia Rother and Alison M. Howard.
When was Curt W. Root v. Farmer Insurance Exchange, Farmers Insura... decided?
This case was decided on January 21, 2014.