. .

Search Results

$________ - INSURANCE LAW - WRONGFUL TERMINATION FO AGENT CONTRACT - APPLICATION OF CONNECTICUT FRANCHISE PRACTICES ACT (CFPA) TO INSURANCE COMPANY IN ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH INDEPENDENT INSURANCE AGENT - INSURANCE AGENT HELD TO BE FRANCHISEE UNDER CFPA - UNABLE TO BE TERMINATED WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE.

U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut (30979)

The plaintiff was a 59-year-old independent insurance agent for the defendant, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company. The plaintiff maintained that his contract with the defendant was wrongfully terminated. The plaintiff maintained that the defendants’ actions were actually violations of the Connecticut Franchise Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The plaintiff was one of the most successful and respected independent insurance agents for the defendant for over 23 years when the plaintiff’s contract was terminated in January ________. The plaintiff maintained that his contract with the defendant was wrongfully terminated. The plaintiff maintained the defendant violated an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in addition to violating the Connecticut Franchise Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. The plaintiff alleged that he was terminated without cause by a vindictive manager. The plaintiff contended that the defendant Nationwide reportedly never informed the plaintiff in writing why it terminated their agreements with him, but contended that the plaintiff had violated unidentified state law and unwritten company policy; that it did not have to show it had good cause to terminate the agreements.

The defendant, Nationwide Insurance, maintained that the plaintiff was properly terminated. The defendant maintained that the typical industry contract with an independent insurance agent contains a clause wherein the contract can be terminated at any time with or without cause.

The defendant contended that it was within its contractual rights to terminate the plaintiff and did not have to provide the plaintiff with any reason for the termination. The defendant p 7 3 maintained that the plaintiff violated both company policies and state law regarding payment of benefits and presented evidence to show that the plaintiff violated Connecticut state law by unfairly providing benefits to individuals when these same benefits were not available to all. The defendant disputed the plaintiff’s assertions that the Connecticut Franchise Practices Act and Unfair Trade Practices Act were applicable. The defendant contended that the plaintiff had no rights under either of these laws.

The trial in this matter lasted seven days and the jury deliberated for one day before returning its verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The jury awarded the plaintiff $________ in compensatory damages.