|
No. 119175-6
| Craig
A. Klapp, |
|
James
Moskal (616) 752-2000 |
|
Plaintiff-Appellant,
|
|
|
| vs (Appeal
from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
|
(Van
Buren -- Hamre, P.)
|
|
|
| United Insurance Group Agency, |
|
Brian H. Rolfe (248)
357-6610 |
|
Defendant-Appellee.
|
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellant's Brief
on Appeal>>
Plaintiff-Appellant's Reply Brief>>
Defendant-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Background
The plaintiff, Craig Klapp, worked as an insurance agent for defendant
United Insurance Group Agency (UIG). In January 1994, Klapp briefly
went into another line of business, then returned to work for UIG. In
1997, Klapp stopped selling insurance and later sued UIG. He claimed
that UIG owed him, but had failed to pay, renewal commissions. Under
the contract vesting schedule, an agent with seven years of service
would have 100 percent of the agent's renewals vested, Klapp contended.
UIG moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Klapp had not "retired"
as defined by the contract and so was not entitled to renewal commissions.
The contract states that "Retirement is understood to be disengagement
from the insurance industry. Vestment for retirement is age 65 or 10
years of service whichever is later." Van Buren County Circuit Judge
Paul E. Hamre denied UIG's motion and the case went to trial, resulting
in a jury verdict for Klapp. In an unpublished per curiam opinion, the
Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court,
directing the trial judge to enter a judgment in favor of UIG. The Court
of Appeals ruled that the contract was unambiguous and that Klapp was
not entitled to renewal commissions because he did not "retire"
as that term was defined in the contract. Klapp moved for rehearing,
arguing that the Court of Appeals had ignored a section of the contract
which was inconsistent with the panel’s interpretation. The Court
of Appeals denied the motion. Klapp appeals.
|
