Title: United Security Life Insurance Co. v. Gregory

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

201 So. 2d 853 (1967)
UNITED SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
Lowell GREGORY.
6 Div. 348.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
August 17, 1967.
Sydney Lavender, of Deramus & Johnston, Birmingham, for appellant.
Nash, NeSmith & Walker, Oneonta, Jas. F. Berry, Cullman, for appellee.
SIMPSON, Justice.
Mr. Gregory sued United Security for breach of a contract of employment. The basis of his claim may be thus summarized:
In 1938 he was employed as a "field agent" by Emergency Aid Life Insurance Company of Elba, Alabama. He was hired by a general agent of the company. After being with Emergency Aid for a few months he was promoted to a district managership. In 1962 United Security acquired Emergency Aid through a merger. The appellee continued to act as a district manager for United Security until his employment was terminated by the president of United Security in 1963.
Appellee's complaint consisted of two counts. In essence it was alleged that the plaintiff (appellee) had entered into a contract of employment in writing with Emergency Aid, which contract had been lost, in 1938; that by the terms of the contract the plaintiff was to solicit life and burial insurance for the defendant, collect and remit premiums thereon, and to supervise the defendant's business in Blount County; that under the terms of the contract it was agreed between the parties that the plaintiff would remain in the defendant's employment so long as the plaintiff solicited life and burial insurance for the defendant and supervised its business in Blount County and so long as the plaintiff made his annual increase in insurance production. Under the terms of the contract, it was alleged, plaintiff was to receive 10% of all insurance premiums produced by agents of the defendant under the plaintiff's supervision. The plaintiff alleged that he performed all provisions of the contract which he was required to perform and that the defendant had breached the contract by terminating his employment on April 9, 1963. Plaintiff claimed damages in the amount of $100,000. The case was tried to a jury which returned *854 a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $5,000. This appeal followed.
The theory of the plaintiff's case was that the contract sued on was a contract for employment for, in his words, "an indefinite period of time", "no limit to it", "permanent", "no termination".
At the threshold then, we must consider whether this contract, which was lost, and the terms of which were only vaguely remembered, was one which can be enforced against the employer who has terminated the services of the employee.
This Court has had occasion to consider this question in a number of cases. In National Union Life Insurance Company v. Ingram, 275 Ala. 310, 154 So. 2d 666, speaking through Justice Lawson, it was observed:
Further, in Alabama Mills, Inc. v. Smith, 237 Ala. 296, 186 So. 699, we noted:
The expressions from this Court as noted in the foregoing cases and others seem to be consistent with the majority approach as indicated by the Annotation at 35 A.L.R. 1432, supplemented at 135 A.L.R. 646, where it is stated that
We have searched the record before us for evidence that the first element required and noted in National Union Life Insurance Company v. Ingram, supra, was *855 met by appellee. There is a complete absence of any claim by him that there was any consideration for the contract of employment, even assuming that it provided for indefinite employment in express terms, "of substantial value, independent of any service to be performed". Rather, his testimony is supportive of the conclusion that there was absolutely nothing rendered by him other than day to day services of selling insurance and collecting premiums. Indeed, his own testimony indicated that he performed this service on a part-time basis and as an adjunct to his personal insurance business, in which he represented other companies.
Appellee relies on Alabama Mills, Inc. v. Smith, supra, where we said that
We concur in that holding. However, that case is distinguishable from the one at bar in one essential respect, viz: there the employee showed the consideration other than the services rendered mentioned in National Union, supra. Here, the employee has not done so. We think the affirmative charge should have been given at the instance of appellant, for the reasons above noted.
Reversed and remanded.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and EMERRILL and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.